[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150915141439.GE16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:14:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 2/3] sched/wake_q: Relax to acquire semantics
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 07:09:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 05:41:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Never mind, the PPC people will implement this with lwsync and that is
> > > > very much not transitive IIRC.
> > >
> > > I am probably lost on context, but...
> > >
> > > It turns out that lwsync is transitive in special cases. One of them
> > > is a series of release-acquire pairs, which can extend indefinitely.
> > >
> > > Does that help in this case?
> >
> > Probably not, but good to know. I still don't think we want to rely on
> > ACQUIRE/RELEASE being transitive in general though.
>
> OK, I will bite... Why not?
It would mean us reviewing all archs (again) and documenting it I
suppose. Which is of course entirely possible.
That said, I don't think the case at hand requires it, so lets postpone
this for now ;-)
--
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