[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E5589A4.8000606@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:30:44 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] x86: Ticket lock + cmpxchg cleanup
On 08/24/2011 04:21 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> However, the reason I disagree with it is that I don't think that it's
>> any prettier at all to have the two barriers than it is to just have
>> the asm.
> .. and btw, we probably do need *both* barriers. We definitely need
> the one before. The one after is a bit less obvious, since it is
> technically legal for code to move into the locked region. However,
> it's not necessarily a *good* idea for code to move into the locked
> region, so the two barriers are likely the RightThing(tm).
Originally I left the second barrier off for that reason, but I got
mysterious lockups. The second barrier fixed them, so I never got
around to do a full root-cause analysis.
I still think the C version is more straightforward given that the asm
version is confused with the details of the ticket sizes, etc. But,
shrug, its a pretty minor detail.
The OOSTORE stuff is a complete red herring; I bet its been *years*
since someone specifically compiled a kernel with OOSTORE SMP support
because they actually wanted to use it.
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