[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160112155931.GM6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:59:31 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
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, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:09:46AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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).
OK, fair enough.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists