[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150428162458.GI5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:24:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking
cycles
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:53:21AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> As you surmise, tilepro doesn't have 64-bit loads. So we are stuck with
> 32-bit loads on these two fields. It's true that spin_unlock_wait() can
> therefore falsely claim that the lock is unlocked, but it should be only a
> hint anyway, since by the time the caller tries to act on that information
> the lock may have been retaken anyway, right? If spin_unlock_wait() is
> really trying to guarantee that the lock was available at some point in
> the interval between when it was called and when it returned, we could use
> READ_ONCE() to read the current ticket value first; is that a necessary
> part of the semantics?
I think it must not return before the lock holder that is current at the
time of calling releases. Anything thereafter is indeed fair game as per
your logic above.
--
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