[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151027223744.GB11242@worktop.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 23:37:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store_mb()
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:33:56AM +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
> >
> > Note that this might affect callers that could/would rely on the
> > atomicity semantics, but there are no guarantees of that for
> > smp_store_mb() mentioned anywhere, plus most archs use this anyway.
> > Thus we continue to be consistent with the memory-barriers.txt file,
> > and more importantly, maintain the semantics of the smp_ nature.
>
> So with this patch, the whole thing becomes pointless, I feel. (Ok, so
> it may have been pointless before too, but at least before this patch
> it generated special code, now it doesn't). So why carry it along at
> all?
So I suppose this boils down to if: XCHG ends up being cheaper than
MOV+FENCE.
PeterA, any idea?
--
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