[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170822062022.GZ11320@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 23:20:22 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Maged Michael <maged.michael@...il.com>, gromer@...gle.com,
Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:42:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:39:16PM -0700, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > @@ -3295,6 +3301,9 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
> > * Make sure that signal_pending_state()->signal_pending() below
> > * can't be reordered with __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
> > * done by the caller to avoid the race with signal_wake_up().
> > + *
> > + * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
> > + * after coming from user-space, before storing to rq->curr.
> > */
> > smp_mb__before_spinlock();
> > rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>
> Merge conflict here, current tip is over to smp_mb__after_spinlock().
Would some tree other than -rcu be better for that commit?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists