[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150228214533.GY5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:45:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 1vier1@....de,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: Update/correct memory barriers.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 09:36:15PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> +/*
> + * Place this after a control barrier (such as e.g. a spin_unlock_wait())
> + * to ensure that reads cannot be moved ahead of the control_barrier.
> + * Writes do not need a barrier, they are not speculated and thus cannot
> + * pass the control barrier.
> + */
> +#ifndef smp_mb__after_control_barrier
> +#define smp_mb__after_control_barrier() smp_rmb()
> +#endif
Sorry to go bike shedding again; but should we call this:
smp_acquire__after_control_barrier() ?
The thing is; its not a full MB because:
- stores might actually creep into it; while the control dependency
guarantees stores will not creep out, nothing is stopping them from
getting in;
- its not transitive, and our MB is defined to be so.
Oleg, Paul?
--
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