[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180712093432.GV2512@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:34:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc: 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>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.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
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> And I think if we raise atomic*_acquire() to require TSO (but ideally
> raise it to RCsc) we're there.
To clarify, just the RmW-acquire. Things like atomic_read_acquire() can
stay smp_load_acquire() and be RCpc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists