[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190804145051.GG2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:50:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 01/14] rcu/nocb: Atomic ->len field in
rcu_segcblist structure
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:14:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +/*
> + * Exchange the numeric length of the specified rcu_segcblist structure
> + * with the specified value. This can cause the ->len field to disagree
> + * with the actual number of callbacks on the structure. This exchange is
> + * fully ordered with respect to the callers accesses both before and after.
> + */
> +long rcu_segcblist_xchg_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
> + return atomic_long_xchg(&rsclp->len, v);
> +#else
> + long ret = rsclp->len;
> +
> + smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
> + WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->len, v);
> + smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
> + return ret;
> +#endif
> +}
That one's weird; for matching semantics the load needs to be between
the memory barriers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists