[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150714083415.GH19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:34:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 08:43:44AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 00:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > This is instead the sequence that is of concern:
> > >
> > > store a
> > > unlock M
> > > lock N
> > > load b
> >
> > So its late and that table didn't parse, but that should be ordered too.
> > The load of b should not be able to escape the lock N.
> >
> > If only because LWSYNC is a valid RMB and any LOCK implementation must
> > load the lock state to observe it unlocked.
>
> What happens is that the load passes the store conditional, though it
> doesn't pass the load with reserve. However, both store A and unlock M
> being just stores with an lwsync, can pass a load, so they can pass the
> load with reserve. And thus inside the LL/SC loop, our store A has
> passed our load B.
Ah cute.. Thanks, clearly I wasn't awake enough anymore :-)
--
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