[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150901163812.GN16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:38:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
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 Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 06:33:06PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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;
D'oh, because I'm a sheep or so. I meant:
b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's nothing to wake up)
--
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