[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180705150945.GA3699@andrea>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:09:45 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dlustig@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by
release-acquire and by locks
> At any rate, it looks like instead of strengthening the relation, I
> should write a patch that removes it entirely. I also will add new,
> stronger relations for use with locking, essentially making spin_lock
> and spin_unlock be RCsc.
Thank you.
Ah let me put this forward: please keep an eye on the (generic)
queued_spin_lock()
queued_spin_unlock()
(just to point out an example). Their implementation (in part.,
the fast-path) suggests that if we will stick to RCsc lock then
we should also stick to RCsc acq. load from RMW and rel. store.
Andrea
>
> Alan
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists