[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131210123726.GE13532@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:37:26 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 6/7] locking: Add an
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() for UNLOCK+LOCK barrier
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:28:02PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> index f89da808ce31..abf645799991 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -84,4 +84,6 @@ do { \
> ___p1; \
> })
>
> +#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
> +
> #endif /* _ASM_POWERPC_BARRIER_H */
Didn't ben said ppc actually violates the current unlock+lock assumtion
and therefore this barrier woulnd't actually be a nop on ppc
--
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