[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE18C57.9070805@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:39:03 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] x86/ticketlock: make __ticket_spin_trylock common
On 11/13/2010 02:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le samedi 13 novembre 2010 à 18:17 +0800, Américo Wang a écrit :
>> On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:59:47AM -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>
>>> + union {
>>> + struct __raw_tickets tickets;
>>> + __ticketpair_t slock;
>>> + } tmp, new;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + tmp.tickets = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
>>> + if (tmp.tickets.head != tmp.tickets.tail)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + new.slock = tmp.slock + (1 << TICKET_SHIFT);
>>> +
>>> + ret = cmpxchg(&lock->ticketpair, tmp.slock, new.slock) == tmp.slock;
>>> + barrier(); /* just make nothing creeps before lock is claimed */
>> This one should be smp_wmb(), right? No CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE protected.
> cmpxchg() is a full memory barrier, no need for smp_wmb() or barrier()
Agreed.
J
--
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