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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).