From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:07:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151016190741.GD3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151016172811.GT3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:28:11AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> In other words, if task2() acquires the lock after task1() releases it,
> all CPUs must agree on the order of the operations in the two critical
> sections, even if these other CPUs don't acquire the lock.
>
> This same guarantee is needed if task1() and then task2() run in
> succession on the same CPU with no additional synchronization of any sort.
>
> Does this work on arm64?
Yes, their load-acquire and store-release are RCsc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-16 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-16 15:18 Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-16 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-16 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-16 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-16 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-16 16:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-16 17:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-16 19:07 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-10-16 19:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-19 15:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-16 19:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-19 7:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-19 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-19 15:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-19 16:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-20 8:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-27 16:19 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-27 18:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-28 10:39 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-16 17:11 ` Catalin Marinas
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=20151016190741.GD3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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.