[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZblDCPrr9fPgEi2P@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:42:16 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] rcu/exp: Remove full barrier upon main thread wakeup
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
> > Le Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:23:39PM -0800, Boqun Feng a écrit :
> > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > >
> > > When an expedited grace period is ending, care must be taken so that all
> > > the quiescent states propagated up to the root are correctly ordered
> > > against the wake up of the main expedited grace period workqueue.
> > >
> > > This ordering is already carried through the root rnp locking augmented
> > > by an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() barrier.
> > >
> > > Therefore the explicit smp_mb() placed before the wake up is not needed
> > > and can be removed.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> >
> > [Offlist]
>
> And yes that was not offlist, my fingers betrayed me!
>
Thanks for the reminder anyway ;-)
Regards,
Boqun
> >
> > For further posting, don't forget to add your own SoB while posting patches :-)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists