[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185301733.6586.38.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:28:53 -0400
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] i386: bitops: Don't mark memory as clobbered
unnecessarily
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 11:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > That's not what the Documentation/memory-barriers.txt states:
>
> Hmm.. You're right. We only actually need it for the unconditional bitops,
> like the *unlock* side.
>
> IOW, if you do a spinlock with the bitops, the locking side should be able
> to use a "test_and_set_bit()" on its own, but the unlocking side should be
>
> smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
> clear_bit();
>
> because the ones that don't return a value also don't imply a memory
> barrier.
Yup, and this is exactly what we currently do in bit_spin_unlock().
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists