[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150713142109.GE2632@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:21:10 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:11:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 01:15:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is used to promote an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence
> > > into a full memory barrier.
> > >
> > > However:
> >
> > > - The barrier only applies to UNLOCK + LOCK, not general
> > > RELEASE + ACQUIRE operations
> >
> > No it does too; note that on ppc both acquire and release use lwsync and
> > two lwsyncs do not make a sync.
>
> Really? IIUC, that means smp_mb__after_unlock_lock needs to be a full
> barrier on all architectures implementing smp_store_release as smp_mb() +
> STORE, otherwise the following isn't ordered:
>
> RELEASE X
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> ACQUIRE Y
>
> On 32-bit ARM (at least), the ACQUIRE can be observed before the RELEASE.
I knew we'd had this conversation before ;)
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150120093443.GA11596@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Will
--
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