lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm 1/2] irq_work, Use llist in irq_work
From
Date
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 11:20 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 09:46 AM, Huang Ying wrote:
> >>> -static void __irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *entry)
> >>> +static void __irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> >>> {
> >>> - struct irq_work *next;
> >>> + struct irq_work_list *irq_work_list;
> >>>
> >>> - preempt_disable();
> >>> + irq_work_list = &get_cpu_var(irq_work_lists);
> >>>
> >>> - do {
> >>> - next = __this_cpu_read(irq_work_list);
> >>> - /* Can assign non-atomic because we keep the flags set. */
> >>> - entry->next = next_flags(next, IRQ_WORK_FLAGS);
> >>> - } while (this_cpu_cmpxchg(irq_work_list, next, entry) != next);
> >>> + llist_add(&work->llnode, &irq_work_list->llist);
> >>>
> >>> /* The list was empty, raise self-interrupt to start processing. */
> >>> - if (!irq_work_next(entry))
> >>> + if (!test_and_set_bit(LIST_NONEMPTY_BIT, &irq_work_list->flags))
> >>> arch_irq_work_raise();
> >>
> >> So why can't you simply test work->llnode->next?
> >
> > Yes. That is better. Even if there may be a small race window, it is
> > not a big issue to raise one extra self interrupt seldom.
>
> Remember something about this. I didn't test work->llnode->next here
> because I didn't want expose the implementation details like that here.
> How about make llist_add() return whether list is empty before adding?
> Because it will be an inline function, that should be optimized out if
> the caller do not need the information.

You could also use llist_empty() although that brings me to that
ACCESS_ONCE thing in there, what's the point?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-01 10:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans