[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230301151826.014c5977@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 15:18:26 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: use try_cmpxchg in check_cpu_stall
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 12:08:20 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Attached patch implements this suggestion.
>
> Please help me out here.
>
> Why on earth are we even discussing making this change to code that
> normally never executes? Performance is not a consideration here.
>
> What am I missing here? Is there some sort of forward-progress
> issue that this change addresses?
Well, we sorta hijacked this thread. It turned into a more general
discussion, as there is code that this change will be useful for
(ring_buffer.c), but we just happen to be having the discussion here.
Where it will at most remove some text and give you back a few extra bytes
of memory ;-)
But if we do use cmpxchg_success() IMHO, it does improve readability.
> - cmpxchg(&rcu_state.jiffies_stall, js, jn) == js) {
> + cmpxchg_success(&rcu_state.jiffies_stall, js, jn)) {
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists