[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140619133624.GI11042@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:36:24 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, 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()
Hey, Paul.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:27:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Yep, smp_load_acquire() orders its load against later loads and stores,
> so it really does need a memory barrier on weakly ordered systems.
Yeap.
> This is the "publish" operation for dynamically allocated per-CPU
> references? If so, agreed, you should be able to rely on dependency
> ordering. Make sure to comment the smp_read_barrier_depends(). ;-)
Definitely, there aren't many things which are more frustrating than
barriers w/o comments explaining their pairing. I'm pairing
store_release with read_barrier_depends as that's what RCU is doing.
Is this the preferred way now? I like the new store_release and
load_acquire as they document what's being barriered better but as Lai
suggested in another reply it does seem a bit unbalanced. I wonder
whether load_acquire_depends would make sense.
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