From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:52:52 -0800
Message-ID: <20131125235252.GA4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20131121132041.GS4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131121172558.GA27927@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131121215249.GZ16796@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131121221859.GH4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131122155835.GR3866@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131122182632.GW4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131122185107.GJ4971@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131125173540.GK3694@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131125180250.GR4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131125182715.GG10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131125182715.GG10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>, Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>, Raghavendra
List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 07:27:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:02:50AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > And if the two locks are different, then the guarantee applies only
> > when the unlock and lock are on the same CPU, in which case, as Linus
> > noted, the xchg() on entry to the slow path does the job for use.
> 
> But in that case we rely on the fact that the thing is part of a
> composite and we should no longer call it load_acquire, because frankly
> it doesn't have acquire semantics anymore because the read can escape
> out.

Actually, load-acquire and store-release are only required to provide
ordering in the threads/CPUs doing the load-acquire/store-release
operations.  It is just that we require something stronger than minimal
load-acquire/store-release to make a Linux-kernel lock.

							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>