[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170630110445.GA5123@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:04:45 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, manfred@...orfullife.com,
tj@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/26] task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with
lock/unlock pair
On 06/29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/task_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/task_work.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ void task_work_run(void)
> * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should
> * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
> */
> - raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
Well, bit the you need spin_lock_irq(). And this is one of the reasons
why I personally think unlock_wait have some sense...
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists