[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...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>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>
Subject: Re: rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, Andrea Parri wrote:
> This seems a sensible change to me: looking forward to seeing a patch,
> on top of -rcu/dev, for further review and testing!
>
> We could also add (to LKMM) the barrier() for rcu_read_{lock,unlock}()
> discussed in this thread (maybe once the RCU code and the informal doc
> will have settled in such direction).
Yes. Also for SRCU. That point had not escaped me.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists