[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1422030058-13611-1-git-send-email-der.herr@hofr.at>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:20:58 +0100
From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Subject: [PATCH RFC v3] sched: completion: locks should not be needed for reading completion state
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
---
v2: proper subsystem tag in subject line
v3: typo in return fixed
Sorry for this resend - just noticed that I had - carelessly lost the
second inversion somehow - logic should be correct now.
The ACCESS_ONCE is needed for calls in a loop that, if inlined, could
optimize out the re-fetching of x->done. An explicit memory barrier is
not needed as complete() and complete_all() imply a barrier.
kernel/sched/completion.c | 9 +--------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c
index 607f852..7c5cd70 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/completion.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c
@@ -288,13 +288,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_wait_for_completion);
*/
bool completion_done(struct completion *x)
{
- unsigned long flags;
- int ret = 1;
-
- spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
- if (!x->done)
- ret = 0;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
- return ret;
+ return !!ACCESS_ONCE(x->done);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(completion_done);
--
1.7.10.4
--
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