[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACbG308kitsX23FTCJiUDVpN2uusabHiN1ifao53yR5fM4Z7VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:33:46 -0500
From: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
walken@...gle.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/15] lockdep: Refactor lookup_chain_cache()
On 13 September 2016 at 04:45, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> @@ -2215,6 +2178,75 @@ cache_hit:
> return 1;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Look up a dependency chain.
> + */
> +static inline struct lock_chain *lookup_chain_cache(u64 chain_key)
> +{
> + struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
> + struct lock_chain *chain;
> +
> + /*
> + * We can walk it lock-free, because entries only get added
> + * to the hash:
> + */
> + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, hash_head, entry) {
> + if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
> + debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_hits);
> + return chain;
> + }
> + }
> + return NULL;
> +}
Byungchul, do you think we should increment chain_lookup_misses
before returning NULL from the above function?
--
Nilay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists