[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151203203159.GW17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 21:31:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, corbet@....net,
mhocko@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, will.deacon@....com,
waiman.long@....com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:41:39AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >+#define smp_cond_acquire(cond) do { \
> >+ while (!(cond)) \
> >+ cpu_relax(); \
> >+ smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */ \
> >+} while (0)
>
> So this hides the fact that we actually are waiting on the cond, as opposed
> to conditional acquiring. Could it be renamed to something like smp_waitcond_acquire()?
Right, I'm conflicted about that. On the one hand you're right, on the
other hand we spin-wait so the next person will want it called
smp_spin_wait_cond_acquire(), also it gets terribly long either way :/
bike-shed away I imagine.
--
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