[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:28:36 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked()
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:04:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:25:37PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Documenting it would definitely be good, but even then I'd be inclined
>> > to leave the barrier in our implementation. Matching the documented
>> > behaviour is one thing, but the actual real-world behaviour on well
>> > tested platforms (ie. x86) is more important.
>>
>> By that argument you should switch your spinlock implementation to RCpc
>> and include that SYNC in either lock or unlock already ;-)
>
> *RCsc* obviously... clearly I need to wake up moar.
It's just a jumble of letters to me - I didn't even notice ;)
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists