[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703075014.GC2902@jolsa.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:50:14 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:41:26AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:39:04AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > > Jiri Olsa a écrit :
> > > > Adding smp_mb__after_lock define to be used as a smp_mb call after
> > > > a lock.
> > > >
> > > > Making it nop for x86, since {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are
> > > > full memory barriers.
> > > >
> > > > wbr,
> > > > jirka
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe we should remind that sk_has_helper() is always called
> > > right after a call to read_lock() as in :
> > >
> > > read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> > > if (sk_has_sleeper(sk))
> > > wake_up_interruptible_all(sk->sk_sleep);
> >
> > Agreed, that'd be to have it in the source code comment.
> >
> >
> > - Davide
> >
>
> ok, I'll add it to the 1/2 part in v5
>
> jirka
actually I see the 2/2 would be better :)
jirka
--
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