[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131030092725.GL4126@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:27:25 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote on 10/28/2013 10:17:35 PM:
>
> > mb(); // XXXXXXXX: do we really need it? I think yes.
>
> Oh, it is hard to argue with feelings. Also, it is easy to be on
> conservative side and put the barrier here just in case.
> But I still insist that the barrier is redundant in your example.
If you were to back up that insistence with a description of the orderings
you are relying on, why other orderings are not important, and how the
important orderings are enforced, I might be tempted to pay attention
to your opinion.
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