[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150916163813.GP28771@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:38:14 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and update
documentation
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:49:18PM +0100, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Will,
Hello,
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 05:13:30PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +If necessary, ordering can be enforced by use of an
> > +smp_mb__release_acquire() barrier:
> > +
> > + *A = a;
> > + RELEASE M
> > + smp_mb__release_acquire();
>
> Should this barrier be placed after the ACQUIRE? Because we do actually
> want(?) and allow RELEASE and ACQUIRE operations to reorder in this
> case, like your following example, right?
I think it's a lot simpler to keep it where it is, in all honesty. The
relaxation for the RELEASE/ACQUIRE access ordering is mainly there to
allow architectures building those operations out of explicit barriers
to get away without a definition of smp_mb__release_acquire.
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