[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzyP8OFJGWB5nZduzqMMwuAwy+1Ed5TBCpdBSOpC1ketw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:48:13 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> What is the procedure for making changes that require support of
> architectures? It is trivial to make a patch that moves this into
> arch-specific includes, the problem is that the patch break all the
> architectures - I wrote support for x86, sparc, parisc, alpha (I can test
> those) but not the others.
We'd need to add it to everybody.
It shouldn't need per-architecture testing - since "smp_mb()" is
always safe. So we could just make all architectures default to that,
and then for x86 (and potentially others that have cheaper models for
release-consistency) just do the optimized one.
We *could* also simply do something like
#ifndef smp_release_before_store
#define smp_release_before_store() smp_mb()
#endif
and basically make the rule be that only architectures that have a
cheaper one need to define it at all. That may be the correct
short-term fix, since there initially would be only a single user.
Linus
--
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