Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:17:36AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:53:33AM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:51:54PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > If we intend to use smp_load_acquire and smp_store_release extensively
> > > for locks, making RCsc semantics the default will simply things a lot.
> > 
> > The other option is to weaken lock semantics so that unlock-lock no
> > longer implies a full barrier, but I believe that we would regret taking
> > that path.  (It would be OK by me, I would just add a few smp_mb()
> > calls on various slowpaths in RCU.  But...)
> 
> Unsurprisingly, my vote is for RCsc semantics.

That was in fact my guess.  ;-)

> One major advantage (in my opinion) of the acquire/release accessors is that
> they feel intuitive in an area where intuition is hardly rife. I believe
> that the additional reordering permitted by RCpc detracts from the relative
> simplicity of what is currently being proposed.

Fair point!  Let's see what others (both hackers and architectures) say.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>