[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090422151909.GA18224@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:19:09 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, serue@...ibm.com, steved@...hat.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a
full memory barrier
* David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > No. They dont generally imply a full memory barrier versus any
> > arbitrary prior (or following) memory access.
> >
> > try_to_wake_up() has an smp_wmb() so it is a write memory barrier
> > (but not necessarily a read memory barrier). Otherwise there are
> > spinlocks there but spinlocks are not explicit 'full memory
> > barriers'.
>
> Blech. That's a good point LOCK...UNLOCK does not imply a full
> barrier.
>
> So we can't assume that complete(), wake_up() and co. imply any
> barriers.
>
> All we can assume is that try_to_wake_up() implies a write
> barrier, but we can't assume that that will be called via
> __wake_up_common().
Yeah, it's all too special-case. We might rely on it in special,
well-argued cases but we should not document it as a general barrier
property.
Ingo
--
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