[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151009111328.GA3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:13:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and
update documentation
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:40:39AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > - RELEASE -> ACQUIRE _chains_ (on shared variables) preserve causality,
> > (because each link is fully ordered) but are not transitive.
>
> Yup, and that's the same for UNLOCK -> LOCK, too.
Agreed, except RELEASE/ACQUIRE is more RCpc than UNLOCK/LOCK.
IFF we can get UNLOCK/LOCK as RCsc the chains are strongly transitive,
unlike the RELEASE/ACQUIRE chains, which will be weakly so.
--
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