[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150709083809.GA14145@mwanda>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:42:49 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/14] rcu: Abstract sequence counting
from synchronize_sched_expedited()
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +/* Adjust sequence number for start of update-side operation. */
> > > +static void rcu_seq_start(unsigned long *sp)
> > > +{
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(*sp, *sp + 1);
> > > + smp_mb(); /* Ensure update-side operation after counter increment. */
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!(*sp & 0x1));
> > > +}
> >
> > That wants to be an ACQUIRE, right?
>
> I cannot put the acquire in the WARN_ON_ONCE() because there
> are configurations where WARN_ON_ONCE() is compiled out.
I think WARN_ON_ONCE() always evaulates the condition. You are maybe
thinking of VM_WARN_ON_ONCE().
I'm on a different thread where we almost introduced a bug by using
VM_WARN_ONCE() instead of WARN_ONCE(). The VM_WARNING conditions had
long execute times so they are weird.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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