[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090212215959.GN6759@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:59:59 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux
(repost)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:15:08PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > In other words, you are arguing for using ACCESS_ONCE() in the loops,
> > but keeping the old ACCESS_ONCE() definition, and declaring BF hardware
> > broken?
>
> Well, I _also_ argue that if you have a busy loop, you'd better have a
> cpu_relax() in there somewhere anyway. If you don't, you have a bug.
>
> So I think the BF approach is "borderline broken", but I think it should
> work, if BF just has whatever appropriate cache flush in its cpu_relax.
OK, got it. Keep ACCESS_ONCE() as is, make sure any busy-wait
loops contain a cpu_relax(). A given busy loop might or might not
need ACCESS_ONCE(), but that decision is independent of hardware
considerations.
Ah, and blackfin's cpu_relax() does seem to have migrated from barrier()
to smp_mb() recently, so sounds good to me!!!
Thanx, Paul
--
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