lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] static keys: fix test/set races
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 12:12:11AM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
>
> 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))
> static_key_slow_inc(&control_var);
>
> into:
>
> static_key_slow_set_true(&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.

I tend to agree with Jason here. I also dont' think the scheduler needs this;
but the new API is more usable for binary switches as opposed to the refcount
thing.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-02 20:21    [W:0.051 / U:3.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site