On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 12:08:20 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Attached patch implements this suggestion.
>
> Please help me out here.
>
> Why on earth are we even discussing making this change to code that
> normally never executes? Performance is not a consideration here.
>
> What am I missing here? Is there some sort of forward-progress
> issue that this change addresses?
Well, we sorta hijacked this thread. It turned into a more general
discussion, as there is code that this change will be useful for
(ring_buffer.c), but we just happen to be having the discussion here.
Where it will at most remove some text and give you back a few extra bytes
of memory ;-)
But if we do use cmpxchg_success() IMHO, it does improve readability.
> - cmpxchg(&rcu_state.jiffies_stall, js, jn) == js) {
> + cmpxchg_success(&rcu_state.jiffies_stall, js, jn)) {
-- Steve
