[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151112144902.GA4549@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 22:49:02 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, mhocko@...nel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
will.deacon@....com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:40:04AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
>
> I cannot resist suggesting that any lock that interacts with
> spin_unlock_wait() must have all relevant acquisitions followed by
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
>
But
1. This would expand the purpose of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(),
right? smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is for making UNLOCK-LOCK
pair global transitive rather than guaranteeing no operations
can be reorder before the STORE part of LOCK/ACQUIRE.
2. If ARM64 has the same problem as PPC now,
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() can't help, as it's a no-op on
ARM64.
Regards,
Boqun
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists