[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190605012429.wmlvlgn4mb4jkvua@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 21:24:29 -0400
From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, edumazet@...gle.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, keescook@...omium.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, neilb@...e.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, peterz@...radead.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/6] workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list
check
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explictly
> checking in the caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 9657315405de..91ed7aca16e5 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -424,9 +424,8 @@ static void workqueue_sysfs_unregister(struct workqueue_struct *wq);
> * ignored.
> */
> #define for_each_pwq(pwq, wq) \
> - list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node) \
> - if (({ assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex(wq); false; })) { } \
> - else
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node, \
> + lock_is_held(&(wq->mutex).dep_map))
>
I think the definition of assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex can also be deleted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
