[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150317175750.GB4141@cloud>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:57:50 -0700
From: josh@...htriplett.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v13] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
barrier (x86)
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 06:30:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:22:02PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Here is an implementation of a new system call, sys_membarrier(), which
> > executes a memory barrier on either all running threads of the current
> > process (MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE) issues a memory barrier on all threads
> > running on the system (~MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE). Both are currently
> > implemented by calling synchronize_sched().
>
> Then why bother with the flag?
Semantically, MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE is allowed to avoid issuing a barrier
on CPUs not running the current process if it can, while
~MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE may not. (The latter would be useful for
applications such as system-wide tracing.) That they're currently both
implemented the same way doesn't mean they're semantically equivalent.
- Josh Triplett
--
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