[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151112145013.GB17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:50:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
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:
> 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().
Ha! that would certainly help here. But it would mean that argh64v8 also
needs to define that, even though that is already RCsc.
--
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