[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180201155242.GL2295@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:52:42 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: asm-generic: Disallow no-op mb() for SMP systems
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:50:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:39:51PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > I could've gotten my brain in a twist or course, which isn't _that_
> > > unusual. I never seem to be able to quite remember the holes you have
> > > with ll/sc on arm64 :-)
> >
> > Is smp_mb__before_atomic supposed to provide ordering guarantees if it's
> > used before a failed cmpxchg? If so, I think it's needed here because the
> > l.swa might not even execute. Or did I just invent another problem?
>
> I think it should do so indeed (and afaik all our current archs are good
> that way).
See commit:
34d54f3d6917 ("locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve performance on some architectures")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists