On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:54:13AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 16:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:14:28PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 10:00 +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > 3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
> > > > know.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mcken...@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > > > commit a10d206ef1a83121ab7430cb196e0376a7145b22 upstream.
> > > [...]
> > > > This commit therefore makes CPUs check more carefully before starting a
> > > > new grace period. This new check relies on an array of tail pointers
> > > > into each CPU's list of callbacks. If the CPU is up to date on which
> > > > grace periods have completed, it checks to see if any callbacks follow
> > > > the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment, otherwise it checks to see if any callbacks
> > > > follow the RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment. The reason that this works is that
> > > > the RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment will be promoted to the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment
> > > > as soon as the CPU is officially notified that the old grace period
> > > > has ended.
> > > [...]
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > > @@ -295,7 +295,9 @@ cpu_has_callbacks_ready_to_invoke(struct
> > > > static int
> > > > cpu_needs_another_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > > {
> > > > - return *rdp->nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL] && !rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp);
> > > > + return *rdp->nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL +
> > > > + ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->completed) !=
> > > > rdp->completed] &&
> > >
> > > This is a very obscurely written expression. The array index is parsed
> > > as:
> > > (RCU_DONE_TAIL + ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->completed)) != rdp->completed
> > >
> > > Since RCU_DONE_TAIL == 0 and RCU_WAIT_TAIL == 1, this is then equivalent
> > > to:
> > > ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->completed) != rdp->completed
> > > or:
> > > (ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->completed) != rdp->completed) ? RCU_WAIT_TAIL :
> > > RCU_DONE_TAIL
> > >
> > > But whyever didn't you write that explicitly?
> >
> > Because the way I think of it is the way that I wrote it -- you should
> > look at the value of the first pointer unless this CPU isn't up to date
> > with the latest grace period, in which case you need to go one step
> > farther up the array of tail pointers.
>
> That is not the way you wrote it, since + has higher precedence than !=.
Color me slow and stupid!!! Indeed, it is working by accident. I clearly
need to either add the parentheses or use one of the other forms...
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
