[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130924170631.GB5059@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:06:31 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On 09/24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:03:59 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 09/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +static inline void get_online_cpus(void)
> > > +{
> > > + might_sleep();
> > > +
> > > + if (current->cpuhp_ref++) {
> > > + barrier();
> > > + return;
> >
> > I don't undestand this barrier()... we are going to return if we already
> > hold the lock, do we really need it?
>
> I'm confused too. Unless gcc moves this after the release, but the
> release uses preempt_disable() which is its own barrier.
>
> If anything, it requires a comment.
And I am still confused even after emails from Paul and Peter...
If gcc can actually do something wrong, then I suspect this barrier()
should be unconditional.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists