lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:56:47 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com, will.deacon@....com, boqun.feng@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > [sounds of rummaging around in the Git tree] > > > > > > > > I found this commit of yours from ancient history (more than a year ago!): > > > > > > > > commit 12d560f4ea87030667438a169912380be00cea4b > > > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > Date: Tue Jul 14 18:35:23 2015 -0700 > > > > > > > > rcu,locking: Privatize smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() > > > > > > > > RCU is the only thing that uses smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), and is > > > > likely the only thing that ever will use it, so this commit makes this > > > > macro private to RCU. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> > > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> > > > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> > > > > Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org> > > > > > > > > So I concur and I'm fine with your patch - or with the status quo code as well. > > > > > > I already have the patch queued, so how about I keep it if I get an ack > > > from the powerpc guys and drop it otherwise? > > > > Yeah, sounds good! Your patch made me look up 'RelAcq' so it has documentation > > value as well ;-) > > ;-) ;-) ;-) > > Looking forward, my guess would be that if some other code needs > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or if some other architecture needs > non-smb_mb() special handling, I should consider making it work the > same as smp_mb__after_atomic() and friends. Does that seem like a > reasonable thought? Yeah, absolutely - it's just that the pattern triggered the 'this looks a bit too specialized' response in me, but after seeing the details (again ...) I agree that this time is different! Thanks, Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists