From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932598Ab3GBJiO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Jul 2013 05:38:14 -0400
Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com ([74.125.83.48]:40484 "EHLO
	mail-ee0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932324Ab3GBJiN (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Jul 2013 05:38:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:38:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "andi@firstfloor.org" <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] static keys: fix test/set races
Message-ID: <20130702093808.GA5166@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1372457176.git.jbaron@akamai.com>
 <20130629072016.GA14746@gmail.com>
 <51D1019B.1020406@akamai.com>
 <20130702080306.GD21726@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130702080306.GD21726@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> 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.

Ok - no objections then from me either.

Thanks,

	Ingo