Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 16:13 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > 
> > Thoughts ? 
> 
>  #if defined(CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO) && defined(CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL)
> +
> +struct jump_label_key {
> +       void *ptr;
> +};
> 
>  struct jump_label_entry {
>         struct hlist_node hlist;
>         struct jump_entry *table;
> -       int nr_entries;
>         /* hang modules off here */
>         struct hlist_head modules;
>         unsigned long key;
> +       u32 nr_entries;
> +       int refcount;
>  };
> 
> #else
> 
> +struct jump_label_key {
> +       int state;
> +};
> 
> #endif
> 
> So why can't we make that jump_label_entry::refcount and
> jump_label_key::state an atomic_t and be done with it?
> 
> Then the enabled case uses if (atomic_inc_return(&key->ptr->refcount) ==
> 1), and the disabled atomic_inc(&key->state).
> 

OK, by "enabled" you mean #if defined(CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO) &&
defined(CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL), and "disabled", the #else.

I guess the only downside is the extra volatile for the atomic_read for
the fallback case, which is not really much of problem realistically
speaking: anyway, the volatile is a good thing to have in the fallback
case to force the compiler to re-read the variable. Let's go with your
idea.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/