On 05/07/2014 02:12 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 01:40:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Tue, 06 May 2014 23:33:03 +0530 "Srivatsa S. Bhat" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c >>> +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c >>> @@ -165,12 +165,21 @@ static void ack_state(struct multi_stop_data *msdata) >>> set_state(msdata, msdata->state + 1); >>> } >>> >>> +/* Holding area for active CPUs, to let all the non-active CPUs go first */ >>> +static void hold_active_cpus(struct multi_stop_data *msdata, >>> + int num_active_cpus) >>> +{ >>> + /* Wait until all the non-active threads ack the state */ >>> + while (atomic_read(&msdata->thread_ack) > num_active_cpus) >>> + cpu_relax(); >>> +} >> >> The code comments are a bit lame. Can we do a better job of explaining >> the overall dynamic behaviour? Help readers to understand the problem >> which hold_active_cpus() is solving and how it solves it? > > Does it even need to be a separate function? I kinda really dislike > trivial helpers which are used only once. It obfuscates more than > helping anything. I think proper comment where the actual > synchronization is happening along with open coded wait would be > easier to follow. >
Ok, I'll open code it and add an appropriate comment explaining the synchronization. Thank you! Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
