lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [tip:x86/mm] x86/pat: Avoid contention on cpa_lock if possible
From
Date
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:18 -0700, tip-bot for Shai Fultheim wrote:

> [ I absolutely hate these locking patterns ... yet I have no better idea. Maybe the gents on Cc: ... ]
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Oh yuck, this is vile..

static struct static_key scale_mp_trainwreck = STATIC_KEY_INIT_FALSE;

static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(_cpa_lock);

static inline void cpa_lock(void)
{
if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
return;

spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
}

static inline void cpa_unlock(void)
{
if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
return;

spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
}

And then use cpa_{,un}lock(), and the scale-mp guys can
static_key_slow_inc(&scale_mp_trainwreck).

[ and yes I hate those jump_label names ... but I'm not wanting
to go through another round of bike-shed painting. ]


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-06 19:41    [W:0.125 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site