On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 04:36:22PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:21:36 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > Oh, I have a pending patchset that I worked on a few weeks ago which does
> > that.
> > I did not post it because it made WARN_ONCE using the unlikely text
> >
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 04:25:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:18:48 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
>
> > How about just updating __warned without a cmpxchg. It's not that critical
> > if the update is not seen immediately to other CPUs. OTOH it's critical
> > tha
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:12:59 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Also, we're now incurring an atomic op for every "call". Presumably
> these calls are rare, but not necessarily - one can envisage uses of a
> generic ONCE() which are called at high frequency. Should we avoid
> that with
>
> #define
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:21:36 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Oh, I have a pending patchset that I worked on a few weeks ago which does
> that.
> I did not post it because it made WARN_ONCE using the unlikely text section,
> but
> the diffstat was nice.
>
> I'm going to post that as RFC just
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:18:48 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> How about just updating __warned without a cmpxchg. It's not that critical
> if the update is not seen immediately to other CPUs. OTOH it's critical
> that's it is visible immediately to the current CPU
Well, I didn't use cmpxchg()
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:12:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:58:06 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > The WARN_ON_ONCE() code is to trigger a waring only once when some
> > condition happens. But due to the way it is written it is racy.
> >
> > if (unlikely(conditio
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The WARN_ON_ONCE() code is to trigger a waring only once when some
> condition happens. But due to the way it is written it is racy.
>
> if (unlikely(condition)) {
> if (WARN(!__warned))
> _
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:58:06 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The WARN_ON_ONCE() code is to trigger a waring only once when some
> condition happens. But due to the way it is written it is racy.
>
> if (unlikely(condition)) {
> if (WARN(!__warned))
> __warn
The WARN_ON_ONCE() code is to trigger a waring only once when some
condition happens. But due to the way it is written it is racy.
if (unlikely(condition)) {
if (WARN(!__warned))
__warned = true;
}
The problem is that multiple CPUs could hit
9 matches
Mail list logo
