[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170413093349.3xxj5zch7zee2mjx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:33:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to
sync_exp_work_done()
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:18:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:55:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > However, a little future-proofing is a good thing,
> > especially given that smp_mb__before_atomic() is only required to
> > provide acquire semantics rather than full ordering. This commit
> > therefore adds smp_mb__after_atomic() after the atomic_long_inc()
> > in sync_exp_work_done().
>
> Oh!? As far as I'm away the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() really must
s/away/aware/ typing hard
> provide full MB, no confusion about that.
>
> We have other primitives for acquire/release.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists