[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200520183529.GR317569@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 20:35:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] srcu: Use local_lock() for per-CPU struct srcu_data
access
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:28:00PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-05-20 13:42:59 [-0400], Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Joel,
>
> > For pointer stability, can we just use get_local_ptr() and put_local_ptr()
> > instead of adding an extra lock? This keeps the pointer stable while keeping
> > the section preemptible on -rt. And we already have a lock in rcu_data, I
> > prefer not to add another lock if possible.
>
> What is this get_local_ptr() doing? I can't find it anywhere…
I suspect it is ({ preempt_disable(); this_cpu_ptr(ptr); }), or
something along those lines.
But yeah, I can't find it either.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists