[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171205222757-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 22:28:38 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant
read_barrier_depends()
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:57:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(obj->val, 1);
> > > > smp_wmb();
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(*foo, obj);
> > >
> > > I believe Peter was instead suggesting:
> > >
> > > WRITE_ONCE(obj->val, 1);
> > > smp_store_release(foo, obj);
> >
> > Isn't that more expensive though?
>
> Depends on the architecture. The only architecture where it is more
> expensive and people actually still care about is ARM I think.
Right. Why should I use the more expensive smp_store_release then?
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists