[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171130163909.GQ3624@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:39:09 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Unlock-lock questions and the Linux Kernel Memory Model
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:25:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:14:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > (Also, technically speaking, the litmus test doesn't have any release
> > > operations, so no release sequence...)
> >
> > True! But if you translated it into C11, you would probably turn the
> > smp_wmb() followed by write into a store release, which would get you
> > a release sequence.
>
> smp_wmb()
> WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
>
> does not a RELEASE make.
Agreed, but it also does not C11 make. There is no pure write barrier
in C11.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists