[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170925122510.2uxm54thizcupgpk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:25:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
gromer <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>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited
private command
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 08:10:54PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > static void membarrier_register_private_expedited(void)
> > {
> > struct task_struct *p = current;
> >
> > if (READ_ONCE(p->mm->membarrier_private_expedited))
> > return;
> > membarrier_arch_register_private_expedited(p);
Should we not then also do:
barrier();
> > WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->membarrier_private_expedited, 1);
> > }
to avoid the compiler lifting that store?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists