[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241115172830.GE22801@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:28:30 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: hoist ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(p->on_rq) above
WRITE_ONCE
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 09:26:58AM -0500, Phil Auld wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:58:47AM +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 02:20:56PM -0500, Phil Auld wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know. I don't think it matters much since the assert is really
> > > independent of the actual write. Like I said it makes sense to have it
> > > first to me but others may see it as just moving code around for no strong
> > > reason. Peter may or may not decide to pick this one up. Other "mis-ordered"
> > > uses are in code maintained by different folks.
> > >
> > > You can see if anyone else weighs in...
> >
> > So I'm not entirely about this patch... :-)
> >
>
> I'm not entirely either :)
Hehe, typing is forever hard :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists