[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1472742257-10515-4-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:04:13 +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>, will.deacon@....com,
1vier1@....de, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3/7] ipc/sem.c: Rely on spin_unlock_wait() = spin_lock();spin_unlock().
>From memory ordering point of view, spin_unlock_wait() provides
the same guarantees as spin_lock(); spin_unlock().
Therefore the smp_mb() after spin_lock() is not necessary,
spin_unlock_wait() must provide the memory ordering.
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
---
ipc/sem.c | 8 --------
1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 6586e0a..a5da82c 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -355,14 +355,6 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
*/
spin_lock(&sem->lock);
- /*
- * See 51d7d5205d33
- * ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to arch_spin_is_locked()"):
- * A full barrier is required: the write of sem->lock
- * must be visible before the read is executed
- */
- smp_mb();
-
if (!smp_load_acquire(&sma->complex_mode)) {
/* fast path successful! */
return sops->sem_num;
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists