From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:14:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160913081441.GA32365@linux-80c1.suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c9039969-21f7-597d-0986-895c176901ad@colorfullife.com>
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>>- if (ipcperms(ns, &sma->sem_perm, alter ? S_IWUGO : S_IRUGO))
>>- goto out_rcu_wakeup;
>>+ if (ipcperms(ns, &sma->sem_perm, alter ? S_IWUGO : S_IRUGO)) {
>>+ rcu_read_unlock();
>>+ goto out_free;
>>+ }
>Is this really better/simpler?
>You replace "if (error) goto cleanup" with "if (error) {cleanup_1();
>goto cleanup_2()}".
I believe it is better as it clearly separates blocking from non-blocking
exit paths. Overhead of course is irrelevant in both in-house wake_up_sem_queue_do
and wake_up_q.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-13 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-12 11:53 [PATCH -next 0/5] ipc/sem: semop(2) improvements Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-12 11:53 ` [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-13 4:17 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-09-13 8:14 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2016-09-12 11:53 ` [PATCH 2/5] ipc/sem: rework task wakeups Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-13 18:04 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-09-14 15:45 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-18 14:37 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-09-18 18:26 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-12 11:53 ` [PATCH 3/5] ipc/sem: optimize perform_atomic_semop() Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-12 17:56 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-09-13 8:33 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-19 4:41 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-09-12 11:53 ` [PATCH 4/5] ipc/sem: explicitly inline check_restart Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-12 11:53 ` [PATCH 5/5] ipc/sem: use proper list api for pending_list wakeups Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-18 17:51 ` Manfred Spraul
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-09-18 19:11 [PATCH -next v2 0/5] ipc/sem: semop(2) improvements Davidlohr Bueso
2016-09-18 19:11 ` [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160913081441.GA32365@linux-80c1.suse \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.