From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Question on smp_mb__before_spinlock
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 18:42:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160906174209.GB29382@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160906111753.GA10121@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:17:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > > The second issue I wondered about is spinlock transitivity. All except
> > > powerpc have RCsc locks, and since Power already does a full mb, would
> > > it not make sense to put it _after_ the spin_lock(), which would provide
> > > the same guarantee, but also upgrades the section to RCsc.
> > >
> > > That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one
> > > another.
> >
> > It would also match the way in which the arm64 atomic_*_return ops
> > are implemented, since full barrier semantics are required there.
>
> Hmm, are you sure; the way I read arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic_ll_sc.h
> is that you do ll/sc-rel + mb.
Yes, all I meant was that we put the full barrier at the end, but the
two things are indeed different sequences.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-06 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-05 9:37 Question on smp_mb__before_spinlock Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-05 9:56 ` kbuild test robot
2016-09-05 10:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-05 11:26 ` Fengguang Wu
2016-09-05 10:10 ` Will Deacon
2016-09-06 11:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-06 17:42 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-09-05 10:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-09-05 11:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-05 13:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-09-05 10:51 ` kbuild test robot
2016-09-07 12:17 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-07 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-07 13:51 ` Will Deacon
2016-09-12 2:35 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-12 2:27 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-12 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-13 2:05 ` Nicholas Piggin
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=20160906174209.GB29382@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.