On Thu 2019-02-14 13:10:28, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2019-02-14, Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> cpu_store looks like an implementation detail. The caller
> >>> needs to remember it to handle the nesting properly.
> >>>
> >>> We could achieve the same with a recursion counter hidden
> >>> in struct prb_lock.
> >
> > The atomic operations are tricky. I feel other lost in them.
> > Well, I still think that it might easier to detect nesting
> > on the same CPU, see below.
> >
> > Also there is no need to store irq flags in per-CPU variable.
> > Only the first owner of the lock need to store the flags. The others
> > are spinning or nested.
> >
> > struct prb_cpulock {
> > atomic_t owner;
> > unsigned int flags;
> > int nesting; /* intialized to 0 */
> > };
> >
> > void prb_lock(struct prb_cpulock *cpu_lock)
> > {
> > unsigned int flags;
> > int cpu;
>
> I added an explicit preempt_disable here:
>
> cpu = get_cpu();
It is superfluous. Preemption is not possible when interrupts
are disabled.
> It looks great. I've run my stress tests on it and everything is running
> well.
I am glad to read this.
> Thanks for simplifying this!
You are welcome.
Best Regards,
Petr
