[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180712083444.GA4927@andrea>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:34:44 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
remove it for ordinary release/acquire
> All the discussion here[1] for example is about having ordering and
> doing an smp_cond_load_acquire() on a variable which is sometimes
> protected by a CPU's rq->lock and sometimes not? Isn't that one of the
> key use cases for this whole discussion?
Not a "pure" one:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1530629639-27767-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com
we also need "W->R ordering" in schedule()! so there better be an
smp_mb__after_spinlock() or a barrier providing similar ordering.
Nick was suggesting a "weaker version" of this barrier back in:
362a61ad61199e ("fix SMP data race in pagetable setup vs walking")
c.f., the comment in mm/memory.c:__pte_alloc(), but that does not
math our pattern (UNLOCK+LOCK), AFAICT.
Andrea
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/6/805
>
> Dan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists