From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/15] sched/core: uclamp: map TASK's clamp values into CPU's clamp groups Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:57:38 +0000 Message-ID: <20181107135738.GE14309@e110439-lin> References: <20181029183311.29175-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20181029183311.29175-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20181107131632.GP9781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181107131632.GP9781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Viresh Kumar , Paul Turner , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 07-Nov 14:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:32:57PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > +static void uclamp_group_put(unsigned int clamp_id, unsigned int group_id) > > { > > + union uclamp_map *uc_maps = &uclamp_maps[clamp_id][0]; > > + union uclamp_map uc_map_old, uc_map_new; > > + long res; > > + > > +retry: > > + > > + uc_map_old.data = atomic_long_read(&uc_maps[group_id].adata); > > + uc_map_new = uc_map_old; > > + uc_map_new.se_count -= 1; > > + res = atomic_long_cmpxchg(&uc_maps[group_id].adata, > > + uc_map_old.data, uc_map_new.data); > > + if (res != uc_map_old.data) > > + goto retry; > > +} > > Please write cmpxchg loops in the form: > > atomic_long_t *ptr = &uclamp_maps[clamp_id][group_id].adata; > union uclamp_map old, new; > > old.data = atomic_long_read(ptr); > do { > new.data = old.data; > new.se_cound--; > } while (!atomic_long_try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old.data, new.data)); > > > (same for all the others of course) Ok, I did that to save some indentation, but actually it's most commonly used in a while loop... will update in v6. Out of curiosity, apart from code consistency, is that required also specifically for any possible compiler related (mis)behavior ? -- #include Patrick Bellasi