[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131015162540.5275728a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:25:40 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bug: Use xchg() to update WARN_ON_ONCE() static
variable
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:18:48 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> How about just updating __warned without a cmpxchg. It's not that critical
> if the update is not seen immediately to other CPUs. OTOH it's critical
> that's it is visible immediately to the current CPU
Well, I didn't use cmpxchg() I used xchg() which is actually quite
faster.
>
> I mean some warrning can be hard to reproduce and happen to some users
> while staying for several kernel releases. If it's repetitive, the xchg
> might impact the performance.
But do we care about that? A WARN_ON() means the kernel (or hardware)
is buggy. It should be fixed.
But Andrew's ONCE() request is something we would want to avoid the
xchg() every time.
>
> I may be overly paranoid, but I think barrier() (so that at least
> we don't recurse locally) alone would be better.
Heh, Boris is giving me the same argument on IRC ;-)
-- Steve
--
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