[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eab90856-7066-4de9-9080-f2479225ad00@web.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 18:54:52 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Liao Yuanhong <liaoyuanhong@...o.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Use guard() instead of mutex_lock() to
simplify code
> Using guard(mutex) instead of mutex_lock/mutex_unlock pair. Simplifies the
…
Use? Parentheses behind identifiers?
…
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -6107,18 +6107,16 @@ static ssize_t freeze_on_smi_store(struct device *cdev,
…
> cpus_read_lock();
> on_each_cpu(flip_smm_bit, &val, 1);
> cpus_read_unlock();
> -done:
> - mutex_unlock(&freeze_on_smi_mutex);
…
How do you think about to apply another lock guard by a subsequent update step?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc4/source/include/linux/cpuhplock.h#L47
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists