[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFCw3do_4TrZSQ6kYQ7Y1RYTuD+PfXRyZFp7gSDs2oUXrBZGqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:57:22 -0400
From: Cameron <cameron@...dycamel.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
Eddy_Wu@...ndmicro.com, x86@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
rostedt@...dmis.org, naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com,
anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] freelist: Lock less freelist
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:08 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> So if try_cmpxchg_acquire() fails, we don't have ACQUIRE semantics on
> read of the new list->head, right? Then probably a
> smp_mb__after_atomic() is needed in that case?
Yes, there needs to be an acquire on the head after a failed cmpxchg;
does the atomic_fetch_add following that not have acquire semantics?
Cameron
Powered by blists - more mailing lists