[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151203211651.GQ11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:16:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
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, waiman.long@....com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:26:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The best we can do is hardcode a variable name; maybe something like:
>
> #define smp_cond_acquire(ptr, expr) do { \
> typeof(*ptr) val; \
> while ((val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)), expr) \
> cpu_relax(); \
> smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */ \
> } while (0)
>
> Which would let us write:
>
> smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
So I'm thinking that might still be hard to use for you if the LDXR+WFE
has the regular LL/SC constraint of not allowing other loads in.
--
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