[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804291442050.22014@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:43:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: futex code and barriers
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> While looking through the futex code I stumbled upon the following bit:
> kernel/futex.c:
> /* add_wait_queue is the barrier after __set_current_state. */
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> add_wait_queue(&q.waiters, &wait);
> However,
> void add_wait_queue(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> wait->flags &= ~WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> __add_wait_queue(q, wait);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> }
[ ... ]
> Non of which implies a full barrier.
Well I am probably missing the point, but what about the lock and unlock
of the spinlock?
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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