[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612BA4B9DD52@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 15:44:38 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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 Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:55:32PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> If you use recount_inc_checked(), it will always produce the WARN(),
> even when using the x86-specific refcount implementation.
>
> (this was one place I had intended to use the *_checked() forms of the
> refcount ops).
Yes, with refcount_inc_checked() it would work, but I don't like it
that much when we have functions that behave regardless of refcount
config. It does help for code minimization & clarity like here, but I think
it complicates things even more: two different configs, then functions that
do not obey configs, etc.
Anyhow, I can change this to refcount_inc_checked(), if this is what everyone
thinks is the best.
Best Regards,
Elena.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists