[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160919030558.GI2279@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:05:58 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.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 Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:33:46AM -0500, Nilay Vaish wrote:
> 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?
Hello,
No, I don't think so.
It will be done in add_chain_cache().
Thank you,
Byungchul
>
> --
> Nilay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists