[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150612070827.GN3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:08:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, ktkhai@...allels.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...il.com,
pang.xunlei@...aro.org, oleg@...hat.com,
wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] seqcount: Introduce raw_write_seqcount_barrier()
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:45:57PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Color me slow and stupid. Maybe due to reviewing a patch too early in
> the morning, who knows?
>
> There is nothing above that prevents the compiler and the CPU from
> reordering the assignments to X and Y with the increment of s->sequence++.
That's actually fine. As long as we observe an odd value the read side
will repeat.
> Of course, this assumes that the accesses surrounding the call to
> raw_write_seqcount_barrier() are writes.
Which is why its got both write and barrier in the name :-)
--
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