Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:04:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] perf_counter: unify and fix delayed counter
	wakeup
Message-ID: <20090401090433.GA27865@elte.hu>
References: <20090330170701.856843742@chello.nl> <20090330171023.153932974@chello.nl> <18897.44531.88862.844627@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1238481425.28248.1377.camel@twins>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1238481425.28248.1377.camel@twins>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1227
Lines: 36


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 16:45 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra writes:
> > 
> > > +void perf_counter_wakeup(struct perf_counter *counter)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct perf_mmap_data *data;
> > > +
> > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > > +	data = rcu_dereference(counter->data);
> > > +	if (data) {
> > > +		(void)atomic_xchg(&data->wakeup, POLL_IN);
> > 
> > Really just a nit, but how is this atomic_xchg any different from
> > atomic_set(&data->wakeup, POLL_IN) aside from being slower?
> 
> Probably, I got my head in a twist, atomic_set() is simply an 
> unlocked assignment (although volatile), and I read the value 
> using a locked xchg().
> 
> I wasn't sure how these two would interact and so I chickened out 
> :-)

The fact that you needed to use an ugly cast to silence the compiler 
should have told you that we kernel developers never chicken out! :)

(And if we do, it's called an orderly tactical retreat.)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/