[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVSOVaTWC3GVwUpz-H_84c08Vxw+QEzDMa0odRCHT4BWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:24:59 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] x86/process: Optimize TIF checks in switch_to_extra()
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> - if (test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_BLOCKSTEP) ^
> - test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_BLOCKSTEP)) {
> + tifn = task_thread_info(next_p)->flags;
> + tifp = task_thread_info(prev_p)->flags;
Minor nit, but I think that a sufficiently clever compiler could
interpret this to mean "no one else is modifying these flags, so I can
do clever crazy things". Wrapping these in READ_ONCE might be
helpful.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists