[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150720133906.GG9908@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:39:06 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:14:14PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 10:32 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > static inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> > {
> > - SYNC_IO;
> > - __asm__ __volatile__("# arch_spin_unlock\n\t"
> > - PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER: : :"memory");
> > + smp_mb();
> > lock->slock = 0;
> > }
>
> That probably needs to be mb() in case somebody has the expectation that
> it does a barrier vs. DMA on UP.
Hmm, but on !SMP doesn't arch_spin_unlock effectively expand to barrier()
in the core code?
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