[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw5d7X0YrgbnQ3Z3iUPir6AvEF0KsAL2T2dQL4V+LnnXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:35:53 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
赖江山 <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, niv@...ibm.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Silas Boyd-Wickizer <sbw@....edu>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] v2 Auto-queued ticketlock
Hmm. Something just struck me when reading this patch..
Our memory ordering semantics in our *current* locks are very very
subtle. We have just a "barrier()" between the
inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
if (inc.head == inc.tail)
break; /* success */
and the inside of the locked region.
I think it's safe because of the new memory ordering semantics (loads
are in-order, and stores only move *down*), but there's not even a
comment about it.
So let's at least comment the current locks before making them even
more complex and subtle..
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