[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5307DAC9.2020103@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:01:29 -0500
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: laijs@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Chris Boot <bootc@...tc.net>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] firewire: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK
On 02/21/2014 11:57 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yo,
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:53:46AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> Ok, I can do that. But AFAIK it'll have to be an smp_rmb(); there is
>> no mb__after unlock.
>
> We do have smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
>
>> [ After thinking about it some, I don't think preventing speculative
>> writes before clearing PENDING if useful or necessary, so that's
>> why I'm suggesting only the rmb. ]
>
> But smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() would be cheaper on most popular
> archs, I think.
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is only for ordering memory operations
between two spin-locked sections on either the same lock or by
the same task/cpu. Like:
i = 1
spin_unlock(lock1)
spin_lock(lock2)
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
j = 1
This guarantees that the store to j happens after the store to i.
Without it, a cpu can
spin_lock(lock2)
j = 1
i = 1
spin_unlock(lock1)
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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