Hi,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 05:50:49PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 16:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>
>> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> > > +static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> > > +{
>> > > + int retval;
>> > > + struct task_struct *owner;
>> > > +
>> > > + rcu_read_lock();
>> > > + owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
>> >
>> > OK, I'll bite...
>> >
>> > Why ACCESS_ONCE() instead of rcu_dereference()?
>>
>> We're using it as a speculative check on the sem->owner to see
>> if the owner is running on the cpu. The rcu_read_lock
>> is used for ensuring that the owner->on_cpu memory is
>> still valid.
>
> OK, so if we read complete garbage, all that happens is that we
> lose a bit of performance? If so, I am OK with it as long as there
> is a comment (which Davidlohr suggested later in this thread).
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
The latest code seems to be missing this comment. Could you please add this?
--
Pratapa Rudra
--
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/
