[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130828091530.7ffe9ad0@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:15:30 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@...dex.ru>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue
spinlock implementation
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:05:29 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 08:59:57AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:19:37 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > Spin locks only prevent leaks out of the critical section. It does not
> > guarantee leaks into the critical section, thus:
>
> What's your point? You're just re-iterating the semantics in case
> anybody forgot about them?
I think we are all misunderstanding each other. It sounded like you
didn't want to reimplement a lock to remove memory barriers.
Are you for the smp_mb__after_spin_unlock() ?
I'm getting confused by who is arguing what :-)
-- Steve
--
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