[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090423212434.GA20556@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:24:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
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
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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:
Well, i mainly reacted to your documentation patch which was
incorrect as it said wake-up implies a _FULL_ memory barrier.
I also suggested that lockless code should have its barriers clearly
documented and they should not really rely on kernel facilities
acting as memory barriers.
Then i also suggested that maybe in the future we could remove the
smp_wmb() from try_to_wake_up(). That was just an afterthought, and
a rather stupid one at that, as Linus quickly noted :-)
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