[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200423092314.GQ20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:23:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, pbonzini@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
will@...nel.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] rcuwait: Introduce prepare_to and finish_rcuwait
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 09:07:37PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +static inline void prepare_to_rcuwait(struct rcuwait *w)
> +{
> + rcu_assign_pointer(w->task, current);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void finish_rcuwait(struct rcuwait *w)
> +{
> + WRITE_ONCE(w->task, NULL);
I think that wants to be:
rcu_assign_pointer(w->task, NULL);
There is a special case in rcu_assign_pointer() that looses the barrier,
but it will keep the __rcu sparse people happy. That is w->task is
__rcu, and WRITE_ONCE ignores that etc.. blah.
The alternative is using RCU_INIT_POINTER() I suppose.
> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists