[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150415151651.312c8f48@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:16:51 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
hideaki.kimura@...com, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, timer: Remove usages of ACCESS_ONCE in the
scheduler
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:49:09 -0700
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
> So I'll keep the READ_ONCE nested inside WRITE_ONCE for the purpose of
> this patch since this patch is a conversion from ACCESS_ONCE, but yes,
> if the original purpose of ACCESS_ONCE was to do an atomic increment,
> then the ACCESS_ONCE doesn't help with that.
For the purpose of this patch, I think it's fine, as being more
paranoid is better than not being paranoid enough.
But this has shined light onto whether it is needed or not, and we
should figure that out in the not so far future.
-- 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