[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151028103815.GA29512@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:37 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 07:40:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:19:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > ... and the 'normal' code will have a control hazard somewhere, followed
> > by the implicit ISB in exception return, so there's a barrier of sorts
> > there too.
>
> Which exception return?
The return to userspace after the interrupt/fault/system call that got us
into the kernel.
> > The problem is that people say "full barrier" without defining what it
> > really means, and we end up going round the houses on things like
> > transitivity (which ctrl + isb doesn't always give you).
>
> I pretty much meant smp_mb() here :-)
In which case, we don't provide the transitivity guarantees that you would
get from an smp_mb().
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