[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140415222951.GA742@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:29:51 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cl@...ux.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
tj@...nel.org, grygorii.strashko@...com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: How do I increment a per-CPU variable without warning?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:17:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> My current admittedly crude workaround is as follows:
>
> static inline bool rcu_should_resched(void)
> {
> int t;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> preempt_disable();
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
> t = __this_cpu_read(rcu_cond_resched_count) + 1;
> if (t < RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM) {
> __this_cpu_write(rcu_cond_resched_count, t);
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> preempt_enable();
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
> return false;
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> preempt_enable();
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
> return true;
> }
Won't using DEBUG_PREEMPT instead of just CONFIG_PREEMPT here make this
silently do the wrong thing if preemption is enabled, but debugging isn't ?
I'm not seeing why you need the ifdefs at all, unless the implied
barrier() is a problem ?
Dave
--
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