[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603002823.GI22231@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:28:23 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] introduce atomic_pointer to fix a race condition in
cancelable mcs spinlocks
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:53:44PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 16:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > But given that I already have preemption disabled and given that
> > __srcu_read_lock() is not to be used by irq handlers, I should be able to
> > use __this_cpu_inc(), correct? Just to avoid unnecessary irq disabling
> > on non-x86 platforms...
>
> Absolutely, __this_cpu_inc() is OK here.
Cool, giving it a test...
Thanx, Paul
--
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