[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140210181608.GE27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:16:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andreas Platschek <platschek@....tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: allow preemption in check_task_state
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 07:12:03PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:17:12PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > maybe I'm missing/missunderstanding something here but
> > > pi_unlock -> arch_spin_unlock is a full mb()
> >
> > Nope, arch_spin_unlock() on x86 is a single add[wb] without LOCK prefix.
> >
> > The lock and unlock primitives are in general specified to have ACQUIRE
> > resp. RELEASE semantics.
> >
> > See Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for far too much head-hurting
> > details.
>
> I did check that - but from the code check it seems to me to be using a
> lock prefix in the fast __add() path and an explicit smp_add() in the slow
> path (arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h:arch_spin_unlock) the __add from
> arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h does lock or am I missinterpreting this ?
> the other archs I believe were all doing explicit mb()/smp_mb() in the
> arch_spin_unlock - will go check this again.
It uses UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX, which if you look carefully, is normally
always "". Only some 'broken' i386 chips require a LOCK there.
--
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