Re: [PATCH 0/3] static keys: fix test/set races

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 12:12:11AM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> 
> Yes, I agree that 'higher' level locking may be required for some callers of
> the newly proposed interface. However, I do think that the
> static_key_slow_set_true()/false() provides a nice abstraction for some
> callers, while addressing test/set() races, by making that sequence atomic.
> 
> I view the proposed inteface of set_true()/set_false() as somewhat analogous
> to an atomic_set() call. In the same way, the current
> static_key_slow_inc()/dec() are analogous to atomic_inc()/dec().
> 
> It arguably makes the code code a bit more readable, transforming sequences
> such as:
> 
> if (!static_key_enabled(&control_var))
>         static_key_slow_inc(&control_var);
> 
> into:
> 
>         static_key_slow_set_true(&control_var);
> 
> 
> I see at least 3 users of static_keys in the tree which I think would
> benefit  from this transformation. The 2 attached with this series, and the
> usage in kernel/tracepoint.c.

I tend to agree with Jason here. I also dont' think the scheduler needs this;
but the new API is more usable for binary switches as opposed to the refcount
thing.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/