[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140618153222.GA11042@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:32:22 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: cl@...ux-foundation.org, kmo@...erainc.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] percpu-refcount: implement percpu_ref_reinit() and
percpu_ref_is_zero()
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:37:35AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > @@ -97,7 +98,10 @@ static inline void percpu_ref_kill(struct percpu_ref *ref)
> > static inline bool __pcpu_ref_alive(struct percpu_ref *ref,
> > unsigned __percpu **pcpu_countp)
> > {
> > - unsigned long pcpu_ptr = ACCESS_ONCE(ref->pcpu_count_ptr);
> > + unsigned long pcpu_ptr;
> > +
> > + /* paired with smp_store_release() in percpu_ref_reinit() */
> > + pcpu_ptr = smp_load_acquire(&ref->pcpu_count_ptr);
>
>
> Does "smp_load_acquire()" hurts the performance of percpu_ref_get/put()
> in non-x86 system?
It's equivalent to data dependency barrier. The only arch which needs
something more than barrier() is alpha. It isn't an issue.
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