[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150714101659.GA16213@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:16:59 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <michaele@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:31:29PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 13:15 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > This didn't go anywhere last time I posted it, but here it is again.
> > I'd really appreciate some feedback from the PowerPC guys, especially as
> > to whether this change requires them to add an additional barrier in
> > arch_spin_unlock and what the cost of that would be.
>
> We'd have to turn the lwsync in unlock or the isync in lock into a full
> barrier. As it is, we *almost* have a full barrier semantic, but not
> quite, as in things can get mixed up inside spin_lock between the LL and
> the SC (things leaking in past LL and things leaking "out" up before SC
> and then getting mixed up in there).
Thanks, Ben.
> Michael, at some point you were experimenting a bit with that and tried
> to get some perf numbers of the impact that would have, did that
> solidify ? Otherwise, I'll have a look when I'm back next week.
These numbers would be really interesting...
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