Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

quoted text
> > I mean, the darned thing is called from sched_clock(), which can be
> > concurrently called on separate CPUs and which can be called from
> > interrupt context (with an arbitrary nesting level!) while it was running
> > in process context.
> 
> Yes!  And this is so on *purpose*.  Please take some time to read the 
> comment that goes along with it, and if you're still not convinced then 
> look for those explanation emails I've already posted.

I agree with Nicolas on this.  It's abominably clever, but I think he's right.

The one place I remain unconvinced is over the issue of preemption of a process
that is in the middle of cnt32_to_63(), where if the preempted process is
asleep for long enough, I think it can wind time backwards when it resumes, but
that's not a problem for the one place I want to use it (sched_clock()) because
that is (almost) always called with preemption disabled in one way or another.

The one place it isn't is a debugging case that I'm not too worried about.

quoted text
> > /*
> >  * Caller must provide locking to protect *caller_state
> >  */
> 
> NO!  This is meant to be LOCK FREE!

Absolutely.

David
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/