[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C092BA7.507@bitmath.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:36:55 +0200
From: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@...ia.com>,
Benjamin Tissoires <tissoire@...a.fr>,
Rafi Rubin <rafi@...s.upenn.edu>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] input: Introduce buflock, a one-to-many circular
buffer mechanism
>> +#define buflock_write(bw, buf, size, item) \
>> + do { \
>> + bw.next_head = (bw.head + 1) & ((size) - 1); \
>> + smp_wmb(); \
>
> Why do we need the write barrier here?
I believe my first answer to this question was foggy indeed, so allow me to go
again, with a time line:
Scenario 1, correct write order:
writer store_next_head store_buf store_head
reader load_head load_buf load_next_head
Result: head != next_head, incoherent read detected
Scenario 2, incorrect write order:
writer store_buf store_next_head store_head
reader load_head load_buf load_next_head
Result: head == next_head, incoherent read not detected
Based on the assumption that scenario 2 could happen if the smp_wmb() is not
present, the barrier is needed.
Henrik
--
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