[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150716054214.GU19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:42:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
_Q_SLOW_VAL
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:18:23PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 05:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > /*
> >+ * A failed cmpxchg doesn't provide any memory-ordering guarantees,
> >+ * so we need a barrier to order the read of the node data in
> >+ * pv_unhash *after* we've read the lock being _Q_SLOW_VAL.
> >+ *
> >+ * Matches the cmpxchg() in pv_wait_head() setting _Q_SLOW_VAL.
> >+ */
> >+ smp_rmb();
>
> According to memory_barriers.txt, cmpxchg() is a full memory barrier. It
> didn't say a failed cmpxchg will lose its memory guarantee. So is the
> documentation right?
The documentation is not entirely clear on this; but there are hints
that this is so.
> Or is that true for some architectures? I think it is
> not true for x86.
On x86 LOCK CMPXCHG is always a sync point, but yes there are archs for
which a failed cmpxchg does _NOT_ provide any barrier semantics.
The reason I started looking was because Will made Argh64 one of those.
--
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