[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150512130043.GF16478@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 15:00:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] locking/pvqspinlock: Replace xchg() by the
more descriptive set_mb()
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:50:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, so I looked at the set_mb() definitions and I figure we want to do
> > > something like the below, right?
> >
> > I don't think you need to do this for the non-smp cases.
>
> Well, its the store tearing thing again, we use WRITE_ONCE() in
> smp_store_release() for the same reason. We want it to be a single
> store.
>
> > The whole
> > thing is about smp memory ordering, so on UP you don't even need the
> > WRITE_ONCE(), much less a barrier.
Ah, you meant the memory barrier; indeed, a compiler barrier is
sufficient. I got somewhat confused between Waiman's email and barrier
and barrier() (again!).
--
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