[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160523210455.7rycskjo7n5rw73k@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:04:55 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, jason.low2@...com,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by
WRITE_ONCE
On Mon, 23 May 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>But rcu_read_lock() does not exclude updates, which is one reason why
>pointer reads use rcu_dereference() rather than normal assignments.
Yes, I was referring to readers. With updates, otoh, are done holding a number of locks.
>
>So I do not believe that rcu_read_lock() is helping you in this case.
>
>That said, it is a bit hard to imagine the compiler tearing a load from
>an int...
Oh, right, good point.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists