On 08/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Surely we can do this locklessly.. I'll go try harder still.
I doubt...
Even ignore work->func check, somehow you need to ensure that
work->next == new can't be changed durung cmpxchg(..., new).
Anyway, if this is possible, can't you do this on top of 1-4
I sent? There are simple, and solve the problems we discusssed.
Off-topic. This is really minor, bur can't we simplify llist_add()?
static inline bool llist_add(struct llist_node *new, struct llist_head
*head)
{
struct llist_node *old;
do {
old = ACCESS_ONCE(head->first);
new->next = old;
} while (cmpxchg(&head->first, old, new) != old);
return old == NULL;
}
looks simpler and saves a couple of insns. The likely case should
assume that cmpxchg() succeeds after the 1st attempt. If it fails,
another LOAD from head->first should be very cheap.
And note this ACCESS_ONCE(head->first) above. I think that (in theory)
the current code needs it too. But only in theory, I guess.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
