[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151001123626.GB3281@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:36:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement cmpxchg{,64}_* and
atomic{,64}_cmpxchg_* variants
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:49:33PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Unlike other atomic operation variants, cmpxchg{,64}_acquire and
> > atomic{,64}_cmpxchg_acquire don't have acquire semantics if the cmp part
> > fails, so we need to implement these using assembly.
>
> I think that is actually expected and documented. That is, a cmpxchg
> only implies barriers on success. See:
>
> ed2de9f74ecb ("locking/Documentation: Clarify failed cmpxchg() memory ordering semantics")
Also:
654672d4ba1a6 (Will Deacon 2015-08-06 17:54:37 +0100 28) * store portion of the operation. Note that a failed cmpxchg_acquire
654672d4ba1a6 (Will Deacon 2015-08-06 17:54:37 +0100 29) * does -not- imply any memory ordering constraints.
--
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