[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150316171334.GG21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:13:34 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier
(x86) (v12)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:43:56PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> > In both cases the cpumask_set_cpu() will also imply a MB.
>
> I'm probably missing what exactly in cpumask_set_cpu()
> implies this guarantee. cpumask_set_cpu() uses set_bit().
> On x86, set_bit is indeed implemented with a lock-prefixed
> orb or bts. However, the comment above set_bit() states:
But its very much x86 specific code you're patching, so the LOCK prefix
is sufficient ;-)
--
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