[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CED695E.5050502@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:37:02 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [thiscpuops upgrade 10/10] Lockless (and preemptless) fastpaths
for slub
On 11/24/2010 08:17 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>>> + /*
>>> + * The transaction ids are globally unique per cpu and per operation on
>>> + * a per cpu queue. Thus they can be guarantee that the cmpxchg_double
>>> + * occurs on the right processor and that there was no operation on the
>>> + * linked list in between.
>>> + */
>>> + tid = c->tid;
>>> + barrier();
>> You're using a compiler barrier after every load from c->tid. Why?
> To make sure that the compiler does not do something like loading the tid
> later. The tid must be obtained before the rest of the information from
> the per cpu slab data is retrieved in order to ensure that we have a
> consistent set of data to operate on.
Isn't that best expressed with ACCESS_ONCE()?
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