[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140423093757.2c07c209@mschwide>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:37:57 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, will.deacon@....com,
peterz@...radead.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, gang.chen@...anux.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: tipbot@...or.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] arch,s390: Convert smp_mb__*()
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 06:11:38 -0700
tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <tipbot@...or.com> wrote:
> arch,s390: Convert smp_mb__*()
>
> As per the existing implementation; implement the new one using
> smp_mb().
>
> AFAICT the s390 compare-and-swap does imply a barrier, however there
> are some immediate ops that seem to be singly-copy atomic and do not
> imply a barrier. One such is the "ni" op (which would be
> and-immediate) which is used for the constant clear_bit
> implementation. Therefore s390 needs full barriers for the
> {before,after} atomic ops.
Good catch, if ni/oi are used this is required. What we want to
add is an #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES. With smp_mb__*
defined as smp_mb() we get additional barriers for older machines
while the atomic ops are defined with compare-and-swap which
already does the barrier before and after the operation.
We can do that with a patch on top of this one, so no hurry.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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