On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:31:57PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > In any case; if we make __schedule() noinline (I think that might make > > sense) that function call would itself imply the compiler barrier and > > something like: > > > > __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE + PREEMPT_CHECK_OFFSET); > > __schedule(); > > __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE + PREEMPT_CHECK_OFFSET); > > > > Would actually be safe/correct. > > > > As it stands I think __schedule() would fail the GCC inline static > > criteria for being too large, but you never know, noinline guarantees it > > will not. > > Right, although relying only on __schedule() as a function call is perhaps > error-prone in case we add things in preempt_schedule*() APIs later, before > the call to __schedule(), that need the preempt count to be visible. > > I can create preempt_active_enter() / preempt_active_exit() that take care > of the preempt op and the barrier() for example.
Sure, like that exception_enter() in preempt_schedule_context() for instance? -- 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/
