[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <53161377795800@web14m.yandex.ru>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:03:20 +0400
From: Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@...dex.ru>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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
29.08.2013, 19:25, "Waiman Long" <waiman.long@...com>:
> What I have been thinking is to set a flag in an architecture specific
> header file to tell if the architecture need a memory barrier. The
> generic code will then either do a smp_mb() or barrier() depending on
> the presence or absence of the flag. I would prefer to do more in the
> generic code, if possible.
If you use flag then you'll have to check it manually. It is better to add new smp_mb variant, I suggest calling it smp_mb_before_store(), and define it to barrier() on x86.
But the same constraints as to UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX should apply here, so it will be something like this:
arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:
+#if defined(CONFIG_X86_32) && \
+ (defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) || defined+(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE))
+/*
+ * On PPro SMP or if we are using OOSTORE, we use a full memory barrier
+ * (PPro errata 66, 92)
+ */
+# define smp_mb_before_store() smp_mb()
+#else
+# define smp_mb_before_store() barrier()
+#endif
--
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