[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090708174748.GB4650@jolsa.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:47:48 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 05:23:18PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers a écrit :
>
> > But read_lock + smp_mb__after_lock + read_unlock is not well suited for
> > powerpc, arm, mips and probably others where there is an explicit memory
> > barrier at the end of the read lock primitive.
> >
> > One thing that would be efficient for all architectures is to create a
> > locking primitive that contains the smp_mb, e.g.:
> >
> > read_lock_smp_mb()
> >
> > which would act as a read_lock which does a full smp_mb after the lock
> > is taken.
> >
> > The naming may be a bit odd, better ideas are welcome.
>
> I see your point now, thanks for your patience.
>
> Jiri, I think your first patch can be applied (including the full smp_mb()),
> then we will optimize both for x86 and other arches, when all
> arch maintainers have a chance to change
> "read_lock();smp_mb()" to a faster "read_lock_mb()" or something :)
>
great, I saw you Signed-off the 1/2 part.. could I leave it,
or do I need to resend as a single patch?
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