[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1387605430.3119.4.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:57:10 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 11:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> >
> > So we'd need the barrier right after the ticket increment (ie: the xadd
> > TICKET_LOCK_INC in x86), and cannot rely on the barrier after the lock
> > is taken as we could miss waiters that are just spinning trying to take
> > it. Is this implicitly guaranteed across all archs?
>
> Not necessarily. But I don't see why threads spinning on it would be
> special? If you spin on things, you've already updated the head
> counter, so even spinners *are* visible, even if they haven't actually
> gotten the lock yet.
Fair enough, just making sure we're covering all cases.
--
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