[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF63ED7@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 10:31:54 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"eparis@...hat.com" <eparis@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 14/15] futex: convert futex_pi_state.refcount to
refcount_t
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 10:13 PM
> To: Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> fsdevel@...r.kernel.org; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; viro@...iv.linux.org.uk;
> tj@...nel.org; mingo@...hat.com; hannes@...xchg.org; lizefan@...wei.com;
> acme@...nel.org; alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com; eparis@...hat.com;
> akpm@...ux-foundation.org; arnd@...db.de; luto@...nel.org;
> keescook@...omium.org; dvhart@...radead.org; ebiederm@...ssion.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] futex: convert futex_pi_state.refcount to refcount_t
>
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:55PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:24:16PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:33AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > > > > Actually on the second thought: does the above memory ordering
> differences
> > > > > > really apply when we have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT? To me it looks like the
> way
> > > > > > how it is currently implemented for x86 is the same way as it is for atomic
> > > cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Never look to x86 for memory ordering, its boring.
> > > > >
> > > > > And yes, for the ARM implementation it can certainly make a difference.
> > > >
> > > > So, yes, what I am trying to say is that it can really depend if you have
> > > ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT
> > > > enabled or not and then also based on architecture. Thus I believe is also true
> for
> > > atomic: there
> > > > might be differences when you use arch. dependent version of function or not.
> > >
> > > So the generic one in lib/refcount.c is already weaker on ARM, they
> > > don't need to do a ARCH specific 'fast' implementation for the
> > > difference to show up.
> >
> > But can they make "fast" implementation on ARM that would give stronger
> memory guarantees?
>
> Whatever for?
Well, maybe just by default when arch.-specific implementation is done. But I was just trying to speculate
to understand. I will resend this one with new comment added.
Still not sure if I need to resend the whole series with updated commits
or break this up by individual patches further for the separate merges.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists