[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612BA4B98D3A@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:55:32 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] perf: convert perf_event_context.refcount to
refcount_t
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 02:27:26PM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > index 3cd13a3..a1e87d2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -1171,7 +1171,7 @@ static void perf_event_ctx_deactivate(struct
> perf_event_context *ctx)
> >
> > static void get_ctx(struct perf_event_context *ctx)
> > {
> > - WARN_ON(!atomic_inc_not_zero(&ctx->refcount));
> > + WARN_ON(!refcount_inc_not_zero(&ctx->refcount));
>
> This could be refcount_inc(), remember how that already produces a WARN
> when we try and increment 0.
But is this true for the x86 arch-specific implementation also?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists