[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:44:40 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com, davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
On 07/07, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Actually, thinking about it more, to appropriately support x86, as well
> as powerpc, arm and mips, we would need something like:
>
> read_lock_smp_mb()
>
> Which would be a read_lock with an included memory barrier.
Then we need read_lock_irq_smp_mb, read_lock_irqsave__smp_mb, write_lock_xxx,
otherwise it is not clear why only read_lock() has _smp_mb() version.
The same for spin_lock_xxx...
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists