From: Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>
To: paulmck@us.ibm.com
Cc: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, paulus@au1.ibm.com,
anton@au1.ibm.com, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com,
pradeep@us.ibm.com, mashirle@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory ordering in __kfifo primitives
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:26:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1155220013.1108.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060810134135.GB1298@us.ibm.com>
Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 06:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> I am happy to go either way -- the patch with the memory barriers
> (which does have the side-effect of slowing down kfifo_get() and
> kfifo_put(), by the way), or a patch removing the comments saying
> that it is OK to invoke __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put() without
> locking.
>
> Any other thoughts on which is better? (1) the memory barriers or
> (2) requiring the caller hold appropriate locks across calls to
> __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put()?
If someone wants to use explicit locking, he/she can go with kfifo_get()
instead of the __ version.
I'd rather keep the __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put() functions lockless,
so I say go for (1) even if there is a tiny price to pay for corectness.
Stelian.
--
Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-10 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-10 0:18 [PATCH] memory ordering in __kfifo primitives Paul E. McKenney
2006-08-10 0:29 ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-10 1:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-08-10 0:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-08-10 5:48 ` Mike Christie
2006-08-10 13:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-08-10 14:26 ` Stelian Pop [this message]
2006-08-10 15:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-08-10 15:47 ` Stelian Pop
2006-08-10 16:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-08-10 16:23 ` Stelian Pop
2006-08-10 16:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-08-10 20:27 ` Stelian Pop
2006-08-10 20:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=1155220013.1108.4.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=stelian@popies.net \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mashirle@us.ibm.com \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=open-iscsi@googlegroups.com \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=pradeep@us.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox