[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140222143859.GD12830@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:38:59 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
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
Hey,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 06:46:24PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> It's a long story but the short version is that
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt recently was overhauled to reflect
> what cpus actually do and what the different archs actually
> deliver.
>
> Turns out that unlock + lock is not guaranteed by all archs to be
> a full barrier. Thus the smb_mb__after_unlock_lock().
>
> This is now all spelled out in memory-barriers.txt under the
> sub-heading "IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS".
So, that one is for unlock/lock sequence, not smp_mb__after_unlock().
Urgh... kinda dislike adding smp_rmb() there as it's one of the
barriers which translate to something weighty on most, if not all,
archs.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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