[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150612130450.GY19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:04:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arc-linux-dev@...opsys.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARC: add smp barriers around atomics per
Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 05:45:59PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> - arch_spin_lock/unlock were lacking the ACQUIRE/RELEASE barriers
> Since ARCv2 only provides load/load, store/store and all/all, we need
> the full barrier
>
> - LLOCK/SCOND based atomics, bitops, cmpxchg, which return modified
> values were lacking the explicit smp barriers.
>
> - Non LLOCK/SCOND varaints don't need the explicit barriers since that
> is implicity provided by the spin locks used to implement the
> critical section (the spin lock barriers in turn are also fixed in
> this commit as explained above
And iirc you're relying on asm-generic/barrier.h to issue
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() as smp_mb(), right?
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Although I'd love to know why you need those extra barriers in your
spinlocks...
--
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