[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200414110516.GO20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:05:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seqlock: Use while instead of if+goto in
__read_seqcount_begin
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:56:58PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 09:45:58PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > The creators of the C language gave us the while keyword. Let's use
> > that instead of synthesizing it from if+goto.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/seqlock.h | 6 +-----
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> > index 8b97204f35a77..7bdea019814ce 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> > @@ -125,12 +125,8 @@ static inline unsigned __read_seqcount_begin(const seqcount_t *s)
> > {
> > unsigned ret;
> >
> > -repeat:
> > - ret = READ_ONCE(s->sequence);
> > - if (unlikely(ret & 1)) {
> > + while (unlikely((ret = READ_ONCE(s->sequence)) & 1))
> > cpu_relax();
> > - goto repeat;
> > - }
> > kcsan_atomic_next(KCSAN_SEQLOCK_REGION_MAX);
> > return ret;
>
> Patch looks fine to me, but I'll leave it to Peter as I don't have a
> preference either way.
Linus sometimes prefers the goto variant as that better expresses the
exception model. But like Will, I don't particularly care. That said,
Will, would it make sense to use smp_cond_load_relaxed() here ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists