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: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:31:24 -0800
Message-ID: <20131127013124.GK4137@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20131125182715.GG10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131125235252.GA4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131126095945.GI10022@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+55aFxXEbHuaKuxBDH=7a2-n_z849CdfeDtdL=_nFxu_Tx9_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131126192003.GA4137@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFyjisiM1eC53STpcKLky84n8JRz3Aagp-CQd_+3AOJhow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131126225136.GG4137@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFw58i3X67exR39M4OwUt5j+9BF4VU03FayRY0xGrnQvrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131127003904.GI4137@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFwhC0kk6TwsTsFEuoUoTe45qBza2=Nf+mrbPONyEGx-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
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: <CA+55aFwhC0kk6TwsTsFEuoUoTe45qBza2=Nf+mrbPONyEGx-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 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>, 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 K T <ragha>
List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 05:05:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Cross-CPU ordering.
> 
> Ok, in that case I *suspect* we want an actual "spin_lock_mb()"
> primitive, because if we go with the MCS lock approach, it's quite
> possible that we find cases where the fast-case is already a barrier
> (like it is on x86 by virtue of the locked instruction) but the MCS
> case then is not. And then a separate barrier wouldn't be able to make
> that kind of judgement.
> 
> Or maybe we don't care enough. It *sounds* like on x86, we do probably
> already get the cross-cpu case for free, and on other architectures we
> may always need the memory barrier, so maybe the whole
> "mb_after_spin_lock()" thing is fine.
> 
> Ugh.

Indeed!  I don't know any way to deal with it other than enumerating
the architectures and checking each.  My first cut at that was earlier
in this thread.

							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>