[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170811143917.GD3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 07:39:17 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> > than put an smp_mb__after_spinlock() between the lock and the unlock.
> >
> > Peter, any objections to that approach? Other suggestions?
>
> Hurm.. I'll have to try and understand that comment there again it
> seems.
My reasoning is as follows:
1. The critical section is empty, so any prior references
would be ordered only against later critical sections.
2. A full barrier within the critical section will order those
prior references against later critical sections just
as easily as would one prior to the critical section.
Does that make sense, I should I have stayed away from the keyboard
at this early hour? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists