[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1264091529.31321.223.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:32:09 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
barrier (v5)
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 11:22 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> > You may also need spin_lock_irqsave, et al. variants too.
>
> Yep, or we simply use the local_irq_save/restore separately. That could
> be a good idea given that only few specialized sites are affected.
If it gets used more often, then we need to consider RT. RT modifies
spin_lock_irqsave into a standard mutex that does not disable
interrupts. But if something does:
local_irq_save(flags);
spin_lock_mb(&lock);
[...]
Then it will break RT (if lock is to be converted).
-- Steve
--
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