[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130828012128.GT3871@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:21:29 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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 Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:53:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 09:14:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > I just had this conversation with Paul McKenney. Should there be a
> > smp_mb_after_spin_unlock()?
>
> Depends on the benefits I suppose :-) Oleg and Linus did recently add
> smp_mb__before_spinlock();
>
> > Although we blew it off as adding too many extensions to smp_mb(). But
> > it may be better than reimplementing something as complex as a lock.
>
> Locks should be as light weight as possible and never implement anything
> heavier than the ACQUISITION / RELEASE barriers if at all possible. We
> should certainly not re-implement spinlocks just to get full barriers
> out of them, that's crazy.
An unlock followed by a lock needs to act like a full barrier, but there
is no requirement that a lock or unlock taken separately act like a
full barrier.
Thanx, Paul
--
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