[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] static keys: fix test/set races
On 06/29/2013 03:20 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As pointed out by Andi Kleen, some static key users can be racy because they
>> check the value of the key->enabled, and then subsequently update the branch
>> direction. A number of call sites have 'higher' level locking that avoids this
>> race, but the usage in the scheduler features does not. See:
> But that's not an issue at all - switching the scheduler features is for
> development and debugging only, and in some cases higher level locking
> would be needed to solve it 'properly', beyond what the keys API could
> give ...
> So this is pretty pointless, sorry, please don't complicate this facility.
> Thanks,
> Ingo

Hi Ingo,

Yes, I agree that 'higher' level locking may be required for some
callers of the newly proposed interface. However, I do think that the
static_key_slow_set_true()/false() provides a nice abstraction for some
callers, while addressing test/set() races, by making that sequence atomic.

I view the proposed inteface of set_true()/set_false() as somewhat
analogous to an atomic_set() call. In the same way, the current
static_key_slow_inc()/dec() are analogous to atomic_inc()/dec().

It arguably makes the code code a bit more readable, transforming
sequences such as:

if (!static_key_enabled(&control_var))



I see at least 3 users of static_keys in the tree which I think would
benefit from this transformation. The 2 attached with this series, and
the usage in kernel/tracepoint.c.



 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-01 07:01    [W:0.100 / U:1.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site