From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"mtk.manpages@gmail.com" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
"dvhart@infradead.org" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
"dave@stgolabs.net" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
"Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com" <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>,
"ralf@linux-mips.org" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"ddaney@caviumnetworks.com" <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:25:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E9D423.1090803@ezchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzbycJ5UXYvwROcr6RG5_+Xxy2YaMn+Q3DksdNp+T3+bg@mail.gmail.com>
On 09/02/2015 05:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For example, on x86, the locked instructions are obviously already
> sufficiently strong, but even if they weren't, kernel entry/exit is
> documented to be a serializing instruction (which is something
> insanely much stronger than just memory ordering). And I suspect there
> are similar issues on a lot of architectures where the memory ordering
> is done by the core, but the cache subsystem is strongly ordered (ie
> saen good SMP systems - so it sounds like tile needs the smp_mb()'s,
> but I would almost suspect that POWER and ARM might *not* need them).
Because POWER and ARM have serializing kernel entry/exit?
I think tile has relatively conventional cache/memory semantics,
but it's certainly true there is implicit memory ordering guarantee
for kernel entry/exit.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-04 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-26 18:16 futex atomic vs ordering constraints Peter Zijlstra
2015-08-29 1:33 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-01 16:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-01 16:31 ` Will Deacon
2015-09-01 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-01 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2015-09-01 19:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-02 12:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-02 16:10 ` Chris Metcalf
2015-09-02 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-02 17:25 ` Chris Metcalf
2015-09-02 21:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-04 17:25 ` Chris Metcalf [this message]
2015-09-05 17:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-07 9:30 ` Will Deacon
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=55E9D423.1090803@ezchip.com \
--to=cmetcalf@ezchip.com \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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.