[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210904101429.GB4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 12:14:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for
fastpath reader
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:50:58PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > * ordering, either is strong enough to provide ACQUIRE order
> > * for the above load of @readers.
> > */
> > rwbase_set_and_save_current_state(state);
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
> >
> > while (readers) {
> > ...
> > readers = atomic_read(&rwb->readers);
>
> The above should be _acquire(), right? Pairs with the last reader
> exiting the critical section and dec ->readers to 0. If so, it
> undermines the necessity of the restructure?
This is the one that's followed by set_current_state(), no?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists