[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1380325227.1631.2.camel@linux-fkkt.site>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:40:27 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Make the memory barrier test noisier
On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 16:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:34:55AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > That would make it seem as if all barriers are SMP no?
>
> I would think any memory barrier is ordering against someone else; if
> not smp then a device/hardware -- like for instance the hardware page
> table walker.
>
> Barriers are fundamentally about order; and order only makes sense if
> there's more than 1 party to the game.
But not necessarily more than 1 kind of parties. It is perfectly
possible to have a barrier against other threads running the same
function.
Regards
Oliver
--
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