linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140123173812.GZ31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:38:12 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:15:38AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com> wrote:
> >
> > I thought that all atomic RMW instructions are memory barrier.
> 
> On x86 they are. Not necessarily elsewhere.
> 
> > If they are not, what kind of barrier should be added?
> 
> smp_mb__before_atomic_xyz() and smp_mb__after_atomic_xyz() will do it,
> and are no-op (well, barriers - I don't think it matters) on x86.

Right, which on PPC are sync, whereas the release need only have lwsync.

And ARM can actually do atomic_sub_release() but cannot do it with an
additional smp_*__after() construct.

Do we care enough to introduce atomic_sub_release() for them?

--
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/