[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904231410590.3101@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
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] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish_wait() and
co. imply a memory barrier
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, David Howells wrote:
>
> Well, Ingo's point is it could be left up to the caller of wake_up() to supply
> the barrier:
>
> *my_variable = 1234;
> smp_wmb();
> wake_up(&my_queue);
That's bogus.
EVERY SINGLE wake_up() would need it.
There is _always_ a reason for the wakeup. And yes, you can re-order
things, but we normally don't. Just make the rule be that there's an
implied smp_wmb() instead.
It's not like it's going to cost anything on any sane architecture anyway.
So asking people to add "smp_wmb()" calls before their wakups just makes
the source code unreadable and fragile, for no actual advantage.
Linus
--
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