Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:57:38 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/15] sched/core: uclamp: map TASK's clamp values
 into CPU's clamp groups
Message-ID: <20181107135738.GE14309@e110439-lin>
References: <20181029183311.29175-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20181029183311.29175-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20181107131632.GP9781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181107131632.GP9781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 07-Nov 14:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:32:57PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 
> > +static void uclamp_group_put(unsigned int clamp_id, unsigned int group_id)
> >  {
> > +	union uclamp_map *uc_maps = &uclamp_maps[clamp_id][0];
> > +	union uclamp_map uc_map_old, uc_map_new;
> > +	long res;
> > +
> > +retry:
> > +
> > +	uc_map_old.data = atomic_long_read(&uc_maps[group_id].adata);
> > +	uc_map_new = uc_map_old;
> > +	uc_map_new.se_count -= 1;
> > +	res = atomic_long_cmpxchg(&uc_maps[group_id].adata,
> > +				  uc_map_old.data, uc_map_new.data);
> > +	if (res != uc_map_old.data)
> > +		goto retry;
> > +}
> 
> Please write cmpxchg loops in the form:
> 
> 	atomic_long_t *ptr = &uclamp_maps[clamp_id][group_id].adata;
> 	union uclamp_map old, new;
> 
> 	old.data = atomic_long_read(ptr);
> 	do {
> 		new.data = old.data;
> 		new.se_cound--;
> 	} while (!atomic_long_try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old.data, new.data));
> 
> 
> (same for all the others of course)

Ok, I did that to save some indentation, but actually it's most
commonly used in a while loop... will update in v6.

Out of curiosity, apart from code consistency, is that required also
specifically for any possible compiler related (mis)behavior ?

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi