[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180705165848.GR3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 09:58:48 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
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>,
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
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Only in the presence of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or
> > smp_mb__after_spinlock(), correct? Or am I confused about RCsc?
>
> There are at least two definitions of RCsc: one as documented in the header
> comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock() or rather in the patch under review...,
> one as processor architects used to intend it. ;-)
Searching isn't working for me all that well this morning, so could you
please send me a pointer to that patch?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists