[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160620075900.GB29165@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:59:00 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper
acquire/release barrier
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 04:46:20PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:17:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > keep the xchg() function as it is or use smp_store_release(&next->locked,
> > 1). So which one is a better alternative for ARM or PPC?
> >
>
> For PPC, I think xchg_release() + smp_store_release() is better than the
> current code, because the former has two lwsync while the latter has two
> sync, and sync is quite expensive than lwsync on PPC.
>
> I need to leave the ARM part to Will ;-)
I doubt there's much in it, but xchg() has DMB + release, so xchg_release +
smp_store_release is probably slightly better for us too.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists