[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52200E7C.5040402@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:16:12 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@...dex.ru>
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
On 08/29/2013 01:03 PM, Alexander Fyodorov wrote:
> 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.
I am sorry that I was not clear in my previous mail. I mean a flag/macro
for compile time checking rather than doing runtime checking.
Regards,
Longman
--
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