[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160112150946.GA1927@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:09:46 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rbtree: use READ_ONCE in RB_EMPTY_ROOT
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22:43AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> With d72da4a4d97 (rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal) our rbtrees
>> provide weak guarantees that allows us to do lockless (and very speculative)
>> reads of the tree. Such readers cannot see partial stores on nodes, ie
>> left/right as well as root. As such, similar to the WRITE_ONCE semantics when
>> doing rotations, use READ_ONCE when checking the root node in RB_EMPTY_ROOT.
>
>No objection, but is this actually used anywhere?
I found this because I wanted to use the waiter check in rtmutexes in a lockless
fashion (ie rt_mutex_has_waiters).
>
>Or is this a just-in-case completeness thing?
This too.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists