[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140514090903.GD30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:09:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nohz: Use IPI implicit full barrier against
rq->nr_running r/w
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:25:56AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> @@ -670,10 +670,11 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(void)
>
> rq = this_rq();
>
> - /* Make sure rq->nr_running update is visible after the IPI */
> - smp_rmb();
> -
> - /* More than one running task need preemption */
> + /*
> + * More than one running task need preemption.
> + * nr_running update is assumed to be visible
> + * after IPI is sent from wakers.
> + */
> if (rq->nr_running > 1)
> return false;
Looks like whitespace damage on that comment's indenting.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists