lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[RFC PATCH 1/1] rcu: use atomic_read(v) instead of atomic_add_return(0, v)
Date
atomic_add_return() invalidates the cache line in other processors where-as
atomic_read does not. I don't see why we would need invalidation in this case.
If indeed it was need a comment would be helpful for readers. Otherwise doesn't
using atomic_read() make more sense here? RFC!

replace atomic_add_return(0, v) with atomic_read(v) as the latter is better.

Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index dac6d20..a4a8f5f 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ static int rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle(void)
static int dyntick_save_progress_counter(struct rcu_data *rdp,
bool *isidle, unsigned long *maxj)
{
- rdp->dynticks_snap = atomic_add_return(0, &rdp->dynticks->dynticks);
+ rdp->dynticks_snap = atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks->dynticks);
rcu_sysidle_check_cpu(rdp, isidle, maxj);
if ((rdp->dynticks_snap & 0x1) == 0) {
trace_rcu_fqs(rdp->rsp->name, rdp->gpnum, rdp->cpu, TPS("dti"));
@@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp,
int *rcrmp;
unsigned int snap;

- curr = (unsigned int)atomic_add_return(0, &rdp->dynticks->dynticks);
+ curr = (unsigned int)atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks->dynticks);
snap = (unsigned int)rdp->dynticks_snap;

/*
--
1.9.1


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-09 01:41    [W:0.087 / U:7.484 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site