I wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 01:14:13 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 09:51:49AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> > - }
>>> > - }
>>> > + if (unlikely((task_thread_info(next_p)->flags & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW))
>>> > + || test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_IO_BITMAP))
>>> > + __switch_to_xtra(prev_p, next_p, tss);
>>>
>>> well isn't this replacing an if() (which isn't cheap but also not
>>> expensive, due to unlikely()) with an atomic operation (which *is*
>>> expensive) ?
>>>
>>Andi is right. I double checked the test_tsk_thread_flag() and it does not
>>use atomic ops.
>
>The test_tsk_thread_flag() does not, but what about all the
>other places in the patch where currently unsychronised loads
>or stores of ->io_bitmap_ptr or ->debugreg7 get replaced or
>extended with locked-on-SMP {set,clear}_{tsk_,}thread_flag()
>operations?
>
>They should all just be plain C bitops (&, |, ^, etc).
Scratch that. You're stuffing bits in the ->flags field which
already is accessed concurrently and thus synchronised. Mea culpa.
As long as the accesses in __switch_to() aren't locked I'm OK with it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
