[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1440811986.1831.9.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:33:06 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
dvhart@...radead.org, Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 20:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Of course, if anything else prior to futex_atomic_op_inuser() implies an
> (RCsc) RELEASE or stronger the primitive can do without providing
> anything itself.
>
> This turns out to be the case, a successful get_futex_key() implies a
> full memory barrier; recent: 1d0dcb3ad9d3 ("futex: Implement lockless
> wakeups").
Hmm while it is certainly true that get_futex_key() implies a full
barrier, I don't see why you're referring to the recent wake_q stuff;
where the futex "wakeup" is done much after futex_atomic_op_inuser. Yes,
that too implies a barrier, but not wrt get_futex_key() -- which
fundamentally relies on get_futex_key_refs().
>
> And since get_futex_key() is fundamental to doing _anything_ with a
> futex, I think its semi-sane to rely on this.
Right, and it wouldn't be the first thing that relies on get_futex_key()
implying a full barrier.
--
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