* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:57:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > > - rnp->wakemask |= rdp->grpmask;
> > > - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > > + do {
> > > + old = rnp->wakemask;
> > > + new = old | rdp->grpmask;
> > > + } while (cmpxchg(&rnp->wakemask, old, new) != old);
> >
> > Hm, isnt this an inferior version of atomic_or_long() in essence?
> >
> > Note that atomic_or_long() is x86 only, so a generic one would have to be
> > offered too i suspect, atomic_cmpxchg() driven or so - which would look like
> > the above loop.
> >
> > Most architectures could offer atomic_or_long() i suspect.
>
> Is the following what you had in mind? This (untested) patch provides only
> the generic function: if this is what you had in mind, I can put together
> optimized versions for a couple of the architectures.
Yeah, something like this, except:
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC_OR_LONG
> +static inline void atomic_or_long(unsigned long *v1, unsigned long v2)
> +{
> + unsigned long old;
> + unsigned long new;
> +
> + do {
> + old = ACCESS_ONCE(*v1);
> + new = old | v2;
> + } while (cmpxchg(v1, old, new) != old);
> +}
> +#endif /* #ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC_OR_LONG */
Shouldnt that method work on atomic_t (or atomic64_t)?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>