[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151203194139.GA5650@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:41:39 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, corbet@....net,
mhocko@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, will.deacon@....com,
waiman.long@....com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Thu, 03 Dec 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>+/**
>+ * smp_cond_acquire() - Spin wait for cond with ACQUIRE ordering
>+ * @cond: boolean expression to wait for
>+ *
>+ * Equivalent to using smp_load_acquire() on the condition variable but employs
>+ * the control dependency of the wait to reduce the barrier on many platforms.
>+ *
>+ * The control dependency provides a LOAD->STORE order, the additional RMB
>+ * provides LOAD->LOAD order, together they provide LOAD->{LOAD,STORE} order,
>+ * aka. ACQUIRE.
>+ */
>+#define smp_cond_acquire(cond) do { \
>+ while (!(cond)) \
>+ cpu_relax(); \
>+ smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */ \
>+} while (0)
So this hides the fact that we actually are waiting on the cond, as opposed
to conditional acquiring. Could it be renamed to something like smp_waitcond_acquire()?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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