[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1307192139140.4089@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:41:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: Fix mutex_can_spin_on_owner
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 02:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > - if (lock->owner)
> > - retval = lock->owner->on_cpu;
> > + owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> > + if (owner)
> > + retval = owner->on_cpu;
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > /*
> > * if lock->owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just
> > acquired
>
> I am fine with this change. However, the compiler is smart enough to
> not do two memory accesses to the same memory location. So this will
> not change the generated code. Below is the relevant x86 code for
> that section of code:
That's true for your particular compiler, but it's not guaranteed at
all. So it matters even when your compiler generates the same
code. Others might not. There is a world outside of x8664.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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