[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1472385376-8801-1-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:56:12 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 1vier1@....de,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Clarify/standardize memory barriers for lock/unlock
Hi,
as discussed before:
If a high-scalability locking scheme is built with multiple
spinlocks, then often additional memory barriers are required.
The documentation was not as clear as possible, and memory
barriers were missing / superfluous in the implementation.
Patch 1: Documentation, define one standard barrier, update ipc/sem.c
Patch 2: Update rcutree
Patch 3: Update nf_conntrack
Patch 4: Update for qspinlock: smp_mb__after_spin_lock is free.
Patch 3 is larger than required, it rewrites the conntrack logic
with the code from ipc/sem.c. I think the new code is simpler
and more realtime-friendly.
Please review!
@Andrew: The patches are relative to mmots.
Could you include them in your tree, with the target of including in
linux-next?
--
Manfred
Powered by blists - more mailing lists