[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351024368.13456.39.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:32:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use light/heavy barriers
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:37 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> - /*
> - * On X86, write operation in this_cpu_dec serves as a memory unlock
> - * barrier (i.e. memory accesses may be moved before the write, but
> - * no memory accesses are moved past the write).
> - * On other architectures this may not be the case, so we need smp_mb()
> - * there.
> - */
> -#if defined(CONFIG_X86) && (!defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE))
> - barrier();
> -#else
> - smp_mb();
> -#endif
> + light_mb(); /* B, between read of the data and write to p->counter, paired with C */
If we're going to invent new primitives for this, shouldn't we call
this: smp_unlock_barrier() or something? That at least has well defined
semantics.
--
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