[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22193.1240519034@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:37:14 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, serue@...ibm.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
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> Well. I think in that case almost every try_to_wake_up/wake_up_process
> needs mb().
Not exactly. They need smp_wmb() in the wake_up() path - unless they use
locks, which a lot of cases do.
David
--
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