[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230612200525.GO4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 22:05:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: keescook@...omium.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, nicolas@...sle.eu,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
trix@...hat.com, ojeda@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, dennis@...nel.org,
tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, apw@...onical.com, joe@...ches.com,
dwaipayanray1@...il.com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
john.johansen@...onical.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, ravi.bangoria@....com, error27@...il.com,
luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 33/57] perf: Simplify perf_adjust_freq_unthr_context()
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:55:57AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So while it might not be the horrible bug I thought it was, I'd
> _really_ like us to not do those things just from a sanity angle.
OK, let me go see if there's another way to sanely write those.
Is this less offensive?
restart:
scoped_guard (rcu) {
list_for_each_entry_rcu(..) {
...
if (err == -EAGAIN)
goto restart;
}
}
That has the explicit scope on the rcu and now the goto explicitly exist
it.
Gonna have to think what to do about the continue ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists