Peter Zijlstra [mailto:a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx] wrote
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:18 -0700, tip-bot for Shai Fultheim wrote:
>
> > [ I absolutely hate these locking patterns ... yet I have no better idea. Maybe the gents on Cc: ... ]
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Oh yuck, this is vile..
>
> static struct static_key scale_mp_trainwreck = STATIC_KEY_INIT_FALSE;
>
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(_cpa_lock);
>
> static inline void cpa_lock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> static inline void cpa_unlock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> And then use cpa_{,un}lock(), and the scale-mp guys can
> static_key_slow_inc(&scale_mp_trainwreck).
>
> [ and yes I hate those jump_label names ... but I'm not wanting
> to go through another round of bike-shed painting. ]
Looks pretty straight forward to do.
We will try this route, as I'm concerned that synthetic CPUID bit will be kind of a global change for a pretty local consideration.
Comments?
(and we will also fix the other error pointed by Ingo - we are missing an include in this patch)
Regards,
Shai.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|