[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180712180511.GP2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:05:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 10:28:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Look for the uses of raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node() and friends in
> kernel/rcu and include/linux/*rcu*, along with the explanation in
> Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.html
>
> I must confess that I am not following exactly what Peter is calling
> out as the failure. My best guess is that he is leading up to his
> call for RCsc locks, but I might have missed a turn.
Yes, it is part of my call for RCsc locks.
The locking pattern is fairly simple and shows where RCpc comes apart
from expectation real nice.
Yes I helped clean up the barrier usage, but as always it'd be even
cleaner if we could just do away with the special barrier entirely.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists