[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191217103547.GC2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:35:47 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, will@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bigeasy@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...hat.com, williams@...hat.com,
bristot@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, jack@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove the embedded rwsem
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:53:04AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -54,23 +52,23 @@ static bool __percpu_down_read_trylock(s
> > * the same CPU as the increment, avoiding the
> > * increment-on-one-CPU-and-decrement-on-another problem.
>
> Nit: Now that you've made read_count more symmetric, maybe this first
> paragraph can be moved down to __percpu_rwsem_trylock() reader side,
> as such:
>
> /*
> * Due to having preemption disabled the decrement happens on
> * the same CPU as the increment, avoiding the
> * increment-on-one-CPU-and-decrement-on-another problem.
> */
> preempt_disable();
> ret = __percpu_down_read_trylock(sem);
> preempt_enable();
There's another callsite for that function too, so I think the current
place still works best.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists