[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150713142418.GF2632@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:24:18 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:09:50PM +0100, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 07/13/2015 08:15 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is used to promote an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence
> > into a full memory barrier.
> >
> > However:
> >
> > - This ordering guarantee is already provided without the barrier on
> > all architectures apart from PowerPC
> >
> > - The barrier only applies to UNLOCK + LOCK, not general
> > RELEASE + ACQUIRE operations
>
> I'm unclear what you mean here: do you mean
> A) a memory barrier is not required between RELEASE M + ACQUIRE N when you
> want to maintain distinct order between those operations on all arches
> (with the possible exception of PowerPC), or,
> B) no one is using smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in that way right now.
My understanding is (B), but Peter and I don't seem to agree yet!
I'll tighten up the text once we reach a conclusion.
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