From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, serue@us.ibm.com, steved@redhat.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:19:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090422151909.GA18224@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4664.1240413126@redhat.com>
* David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > No. They dont generally imply a full memory barrier versus any
> > arbitrary prior (or following) memory access.
> >
> > try_to_wake_up() has an smp_wmb() so it is a write memory barrier
> > (but not necessarily a read memory barrier). Otherwise there are
> > spinlocks there but spinlocks are not explicit 'full memory
> > barriers'.
>
> Blech. That's a good point LOCK...UNLOCK does not imply a full
> barrier.
>
> So we can't assume that complete(), wake_up() and co. imply any
> barriers.
>
> All we can assume is that try_to_wake_up() implies a write
> barrier, but we can't assume that that will be called via
> __wake_up_common().
Yeah, it's all too special-case. We might rely on it in special,
well-argued cases but we should not document it as a general barrier
property.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-22 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-13 18:17 [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 19:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:40 ` David Howells
2009-04-13 21:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:57 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 22:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-15 23:27 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-16 9:10 ` David Howells
2009-04-16 14:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 13:37 ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier David Howells
2009-04-22 13:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 14:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 15:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 15:12 ` David Howells
2009-04-22 15:19 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-04-22 16:23 ` David Howells
2009-04-22 17:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:32 ` [PATCH] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish_wait() and co. imply a " David Howells
2009-04-23 16:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 11:46 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 15:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:48 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28 10:18 ` David Howells
2009-04-28 13:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:53 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 20:35 ` David Howells
2009-04-23 21:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 21:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:36 ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full " Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 20:37 ` David Howells
2009-04-23 16:00 ` [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait David Howells
2009-04-23 16:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:35 ` David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090422151909.GA18224@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=steved@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.