On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:08:26PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 04/18/2017 06:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -146,6 +154,7 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct
> > * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
> > * instances block while the update is in
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:08:26PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 04/18/2017 06:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -146,6 +154,7 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct
> > * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
> > * instances block while the update is in
On 04/18/2017 06:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
This change does two things; it moves the get_online_cpus() call into
generic code, with the aim of later providing some static_key ops that
avoid it.
And as a side effect it inverts the relation between cpu_hotplug_lock
and jump_label_mutex.
On 04/18/2017 06:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
This change does two things; it moves the get_online_cpus() call into
generic code, with the aim of later providing some static_key ops that
avoid it.
And as a side effect it inverts the relation between cpu_hotplug_lock
and jump_label_mutex.
This change does two things; it moves the get_online_cpus() call into
generic code, with the aim of later providing some static_key ops that
avoid it.
And as a side effect it inverts the relation between cpu_hotplug_lock
and jump_label_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
This change does two things; it moves the get_online_cpus() call into
generic code, with the aim of later providing some static_key ops that
avoid it.
And as a side effect it inverts the relation between cpu_hotplug_lock
and jump_label_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
---
6 matches
Mail list logo