From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: frlock and barrier discussion
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:41:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030129174133.A19912@twiddle.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1043889355.10153.571.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>; from shemminger@osdl.org on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:15:55PM -0800
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:15:55PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> First, write_begin/end can only be safely used when there is separate
> writer synchronization such as a spin_lock or semaphore.
> As far as I know, semaphore or spin_lock guarantees a barrier.
> So xtime or anything else can not be read before the spin_lock.
>
> Using mb() is more paranoid than necessary.
If you want stuff to happen *between* the write_begin/end, or
indeed for the begin/end not to be interleaved, then mb() is
absolutely necessary. The most likely dynamic reordering of
//begin
t1 = rw->pre_sequence
t1 += 1
rw->pre_sequence = t1
wmb()
//stuff
xtimensec = xtime.tv_nsec
//end
wmb()
t2 = rw->post_sequence
t2 += 1
rw->post_sequence = t2
is
t1 = rw->pre_sequence
t2 = rw->post_sequence
xtimensec = xtime.tv_nsec
t1 += 1;
t2 += 2;
rw->pre_sequence = t1
wmb()
wmb()
rw->post_sequence = t2
Why? Because pre_sequence and post_sequence are in the same
cache line, and both reads could be satisfied in the same
cycle by the same line fill from main memory.
If you don't care about stuff happening in between the
write_begin/end, then why are you using them at all?
r~
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-30 1:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-28 23:42 [PATCH] (1/4) 2.5.59 fast reader/writer lock for gettimeofday Stephen Hemminger
2003-01-29 7:06 ` Richard Henderson
2003-01-29 7:26 ` Anton Blanchard
2003-01-29 8:41 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-30 1:15 ` frlock and barrier discussion Stephen Hemminger
2003-01-30 1:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-01-30 1:41 ` Richard Henderson [this message]
2003-01-30 1:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-01-31 0:41 ` Richard Henderson
2003-01-31 0:57 ` Andrea Arcangeli
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-30 18:20 Manfred Spraul
2003-01-30 18:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-01-30 19:05 ` Manfred Spraul
2003-01-30 19:54 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-01-30 22:32 ` Alan Cox
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=20030129174133.A19912@twiddle.net \
--to=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
/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