[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whLGKOmM++OQi5GX08_dfh8Xfz9Wq7khPo+MVtPYh_8hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:54:12 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 10:56 PM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> You can't then go and decide to remove the compiler barrier! To do
> that you'd need to audit every single use of rcu_read_lock in the
> kernel to ensure that they're not depending on the compiler barrier.
What's the possible case where it would matter when there is no preemption?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists