[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250624150021.GX1613200@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:00:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
"Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>,
Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 08/14] unwind deferred: Use bitmask to determine
which callbacks to call
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:55:38AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Which is somewhat inconsistent;
> >
> > __clear_bit()/__set_bit()
>
> Hmm, are the above non-atomic?
Yes, ctags or any other code browser of you choice should get you to
their definition, which has a comment explaining the non-atomicy of
them.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists