[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703090606.GA3902@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:06:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
davidel@...ilserver.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
* Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -302,4 +302,7 @@ static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
> #define _raw_read_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
> #define _raw_write_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
>
> +/* The {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are full memory barriers. */
> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() do { } while (0)
Two small stylistic comments, please make this an inline function:
static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { }
#define smp_mb__after_lock
(untested)
> +/* The lock does not imply full memory barrier. */
> +#ifndef smp_mb__after_lock
> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() smp_mb()
> +#endif
ditto.
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