[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231009105320.scljokj4ies2s5r4@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:23:20 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
stratos-dev@...lists.linaro.org,
Erik Schilling <erik.schilling@...aro.org>,
Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidianakis@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: privcmd: Add support for ioeventfd
On 09-10-23, 10:40, Alex Bennée wrote:
> I thought generally sync points act as full barriers. Doing a bunch of
> grepping I think ends at:
>
> static __always_inline bool __mutex_unlock_fast(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> unsigned long curr = (unsigned long)current;
>
> return atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_release(&lock->owner, &curr, 0UL);
> }
>
> so you should already have completed your writes by that point.
I am not sure if depending on such indirect mechanisms to implement
barriers for you is a good idea.
The situation here probably requires explicit barriers to make sure it
doesn't break in future ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists