[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151016163915.GB3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:39:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 09:28:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Maybe some previous RCU variant relied on this?
>
> Yes, older versions did rely on this. Now, only the CPU itself observes
> RCU's state changes during context switch. I couldn't tell you exactly
> when this changed. :-/
>
> With the exception of some synchronize_sched_expedited() cases, but in
> those cases, RCU code acquires the CPU's leaf rcu_node structure's
> ->lock, and with the required strong transitivity.
OK, so I can scrap this 'requirement' from my list. All sorted, thanks!
> > > Well, arm64 might well need smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() to be non-empty.
> >
> > Its UNLOCK+LOCK should be RCsc, so that should be good. Its just that
> > LOCK+UNLOCK isn't anything.
>
> Ah! If RCU relies on LOCK+UNLOCK being a barrier of any sort, that is a
> bug in RCU that needs fixing.
Don't think RCU does that, But its what schedule() provides in the
weakest case. Hence my question here.
--
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