[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151112180003.GE17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:00:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: ralf@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, boqun.feng@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock()
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:46:53AM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> For CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON the proper thing would be:
>
> smp_wmb();
> smp_rmb();
>
> Which expands to exactly the same thing as wmb() because smp_rmb() expands
> to nothing.
OK, so the current code isn't broken because for Cavium wmb is suffient
because rmb is a no-op, and for !Cavium wmb expands to SYNC.
> You yourself seem to have added smp_store_release(), so we could even do:
>
> smp_store_release(&lock->h.serving_now, lock->h.serving_now + 1);
>
> That would leave us to cook up a proper definition of smp_store_release().
That is indeed the better solution.
--
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