[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151112150251.GZ3972@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:51 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.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 10:49:02PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> 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.
Indeed it would. Which might be OK.
> 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.
Agreed, and that is why we need Will to weigh in.
Thanx, Paul
--
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