From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:11:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20160617011155.GA14591@linux-80c1.suse> References: <1465944489-43440-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1465944489-43440-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20160615165659.GC2094@linux-80c1.suse> <20160615171250.GO30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160615182724.GD2094@linux-80c1.suse> <20160615184007.GW30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160615184007.GW30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Waiman Long , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Jason Low , Dave Chinner , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a >variables with the osq_lock. So one problem I have with all this is that if we are hardening osq_lock/unlock() because of some future use that is specific to rwsems, then we will immediately be hurting mutexes for no good reason. Thanks, Davidlohr From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43108 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754113AbcFQBML (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:12:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:11:55 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier Message-ID: <20160617011155.GA14591@linux-80c1.suse> References: <1465944489-43440-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1465944489-43440-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20160615165659.GC2094@linux-80c1.suse> <20160615171250.GO30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160615182724.GD2094@linux-80c1.suse> <20160615184007.GW30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160615184007.GW30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Waiman Long , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Jason Low , Dave Chinner , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch Message-ID: <20160617011155.xcCftBygBiMxU3N8swKDBI8S-8dlcGspQeU5N5JxAAU@z> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a >variables with the osq_lock. So one problem I have with all this is that if we are hardening osq_lock/unlock() because of some future use that is specific to rwsems, then we will immediately be hurting mutexes for no good reason. Thanks, Davidlohr