Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:22:36 +0100 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] irq_work: Slightly simplify IRQ_WORK_PENDING clearing |
| |
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:27:05PM +0000, Leonard Crestez wrote: > On 08.11.2019 18:09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Instead of fetching the value of flags and perform an xchg() to clear > > a bit, just use atomic_fetch_andnot() that is more suitable to do that > > job in one operation while keeping the full ordering. > > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > --- > > kernel/irq_work.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c > > index 255454a48346..49c53f80a13a 100644 > > --- a/kernel/irq_work.c > > +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c > > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static bool irq_work_claim(struct irq_work *work) > > oflags = atomic_fetch_or(IRQ_WORK_CLAIMED, &work->flags); > > /* > > * If the work is already pending, no need to raise the IPI. > > - * The pairing atomic_xchg() in irq_work_run() makes sure > > + * The pairing atomic_fetch_andnot() in irq_work_run() makes sure > > * everything we did before is visible. > > */ > > if (oflags & IRQ_WORK_PENDING) > > @@ -135,7 +135,6 @@ static void irq_work_run_list(struct llist_head *list) > > { > > struct irq_work *work, *tmp; > > struct llist_node *llnode; > > - int flags; > > > > BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled()); > > > > @@ -144,6 +143,7 @@ static void irq_work_run_list(struct llist_head *list) > > > > llnode = llist_del_all(list); > > llist_for_each_entry_safe(work, tmp, llnode, llnode) { > > + int flags; > > /* > > * Clear the PENDING bit, after this point the @work > > * can be re-used. > > @@ -151,8 +151,7 @@ static void irq_work_run_list(struct llist_head *list) > > * to claim that work don't rely on us to handle their data > > * while we are in the middle of the func. > > */ > > - flags = atomic_read(&work->flags) & ~IRQ_WORK_PENDING; > > - atomic_xchg(&work->flags, flags); > > + flags = atomic_fetch_andnot(IRQ_WORK_PENDING, &work->flags); > > > > work->func(work); > > /* > > This breaks switching between cpufreq governors in linux-next on arm64 > and various other stuff. The fix in this email doesn't compile: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/12/622 > > I assume you meant "&= ~" instead of "~=", this seems to work:
Indeed, duh again!
I still think that ~= would be nice to have though...
Thanks!
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c > index 49c53f80a13a..828cc30774bc 100644 > --- a/kernel/irq_work.c > +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c > @@ -156,10 +156,11 @@ static void irq_work_run_list(struct llist_head *list) > work->func(work); > /* > * Clear the BUSY bit and return to the free state if > * no-one else claimed it meanwhile. > */ > + flags &= ~IRQ_WORK_PENDING; > (void)atomic_cmpxchg(&work->flags, flags, flags & > ~IRQ_WORK_BUSY); > } > }
| |