[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150317210635.5d08255c@grimm.local.home>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:06:35 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
barrier (x86) (v12)
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:46:41 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> > Would that help?
> >
> > this_cpu_write(saved_next, next);
> > rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next);
> > rq->curr = this_cpu_read(saved_next);
>
> Assuming there is a full memory barrier (e.g. load_cr3) within
> context_switch, it would help for ordering memory accesses that
> are performed prior to the preemption, but not for memory accesses
> to be performed immediately after return to userspace from preemption.
Hmm, I was thinking that there was a spin_unlock(rq->lock) after that,
but it appears that context_switch() does the unlock. If there was an
spin_unlock() after this code, then it could work. There's always
setting the rq->curr in the context_switch() call itself.
-- Steve
--
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