From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: optimize out smp_mb using srcu_read_unlock
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:11:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52723AD9.4040902@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131031064743.GB20205@redhat.com>
Il 31/10/2013 07:47, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> This looks dubious to me. All other smp_mb__after_* variants are there
> because some atomic operations have different memory barrier semantics on
> different arches,
It doesn't have to be arches; unlock APIs typically have release
semantics only, but SRCU is stronger.
> but srcu_read_unlock() have the same semantics on all
> arches, so smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock() becomes
> smp_mb__after_a_function_that_happens_to_have_mb_now_but_may_not_have_in_the_feature().
> How likely it is that smp_mb() will disappear from srcu_read_unlock()
> (if was added for a reason I guess)? May be we should change documentation
> to say that srcu_read_unlock() is a memory barrier which will reflect
> the reality.
That would be different from all other unlock APIs.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-31 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-30 19:09 [PATCH RFC] kvm: optimize out smp_mb using srcu_read_unlock Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-10-30 20:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-30 23:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-10-31 4:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-31 6:47 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-31 11:11 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2013-10-31 12:28 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-31 13:57 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-11-01 8:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-31 11:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-10-31 11:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=52723AD9.4040902@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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.