[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjdOX0t45a7aHerVPv_WBM3AmMi3sEp8xb19jpLFnk0dA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:28:31 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@...two.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Avoid memory barrier in read_seqcount() through load acquire
On Wed, 18 Sept 2024 at 08:22, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Sept 2024 at 13:15, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) <cl@...two.org> wrote:
> >
> > Other arches do not have acquire / release and will create additional
> > barriers in the fallback implementation of smp_load_acquire. So it needs
> > to be an arch config option.
>
> Actually, I looked at a few cases, and it doesn't really seem to be true.
Bah. I ended up just committing the minimal version of this all. I
gave Christoph credit for the commit, because I stole his commit
message, and he did most of the work, I just ended up going "simplify,
simplify, simplify".
I doubt anybody will notice, and smp_load_acquire() is the future. Any
architecture that does badly on it just doesn't matter (and, as
mentioned, I don't think they even exist - "smp_rmb()" is generally at
least as expensive).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists