[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430240361.2004.13.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:59:21 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
fredrik.markstrom@...driver.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipc/mqueue: remove STATE_PENDING
On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Well, if you can 'guarantee' the cmpxchg will not fail, you can then
> rely on the fact that cmpxchg implies a full barrier, which would
> obviate the need for the wmb.
Yes, assuming it implies barriers on both sides. And we could obviously
remove the need for pairing. With wake_q being local to wq_sleep() I
cannot see duplicate tasks trying to add themselves in the list. Failed
cmpxchg should only occur when users start misusing the wake_q.
Manfred, do you have any objections to this? Perhaps I've missed the
real purpose of the barriers.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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