[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231031152033.GC15024@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 16:20:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, matz@...e.de,
ubizjak@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] rcu/tasks: Handle new PF_IDLE semantics
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 07:24:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> So, at least until GCC catches up to clang's code generation, I take it
> that you don't want WRITE_ONCE() for that ->nvcsw increment. Thoughts on
> ->on_rq?
I've not done the patch yet, but I suspect those would be fine, those
are straight up stores, hard to get wrong (famous last words).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists