[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1329404302.2293.237.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:58:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] rcu: direct algorithmic SRCU
implementation
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 09:52 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Ah, so this is what I missed: the context switch has its lock/unlock
> pair, the following migration is performed under its own lock/unlock
> pair, and the following context switch also has its lock/unlock pair. So
> yes, this should be sufficient to act as a full memory barrier.
In fact it typically looks like:
LOCK(rq0->lock)
switch-from-A
UNLOCK(rq0->lock);
LOCK(rq0->lock);
LOCK(rq1->lock);
migrate-A
UNLOCK(rq1->lock);
UNLOCK(rq0->lock);
LOCK(rq1->lock);
switch-to-A
UNLOCK(rq1->lock);
the migrate taking both locks involved guarantees that the switch-to
always comes _after_ the switch_from. The migrate might be performed on
a completely unrelated cpu although typically it would be either the old
(push) or the new (pull).
--
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