Hello, Glauber. On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:58:37PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > At first I though that we could get rid of all this complication by > calling stop machine from the static_branch API. This would all > magically go away. I actually even tried it. > > However, reading the code for other architectures (other than x86), > I found that they usually rely on the fixed instruction size to just > patch an instruction atomically and go home happy. > > Using stop machine and the like would slow them down considerably. > Not only slow down the static branch update (which is acceptable), > but everybody else (which is horrible). It seemed to defeat the > purpose of static branches a bit. > > The other users of static branches seems to be fine coping with the > fact that in cases with multiple-sites, they will spread in time. No, what I mean is that why can't you do about the same mutexed activated inside static_key API function instead of requiring every user to worry about the function returning asynchronously. ie. synchronize inside static_key API instead of in the callers. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>