[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWwNSjr0aRTPB3QrLNXztqwOBPWmNGggEJ+W+nxbLDaDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:57:53 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Turner <commonly@...il.com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] restartable sequences v2: fast user-space percpu
critical sections
On Apr 8, 2016 4:04 AM, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:05:26PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > It doesn't, which is what I like about my variant. If the thread
> > accesses the protected data structure, though, it should bump the
> > sequence count, which will cause the first thread to about when it
> > gets scheduled in.
>
> Nope it won't, because that first thread is right at the commit
> instruction, nothing will stop it from executing that store and clobbing
> what we just wrote.
>
I don't think so. I write an event number. You commit because you
didn't notice. I haven't loaded yet from the value you wrote when you
committed, so nothing goes wrong.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists