[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k1i411vc.fsf@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:20:07 +0100
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Wang <wonderfly@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 07/25] printk-rb: add functionality required by printk
On 2019-02-12, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:30 AM John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> + while (atomic_long_read(&rb->lost)) {
>> + atomic_long_dec(&rb->lost);
>> + rb->seq++;
>> + }
>
> This looks like crazy garbage. It's neither atomic nor sane.
It works because because only 1 context on a single CPU can hit that
loop. But yes, it is crazy.
> Why isn't it something like
>
> if (atomic_long_read(&rb->lost)) {
> long lost = atomic_xchg(&rb->lost, 0);
> rb->seq += lost;
> }
>
> instead?
Yes, it should be like you suggest. Thanks.
John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists