From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rtmutex: Use acquire/release semantics
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:57:32 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509292256010.4500@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150928194948.GA4035@linux-uzut.site>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > That changelog is not really helpful if someone is going to look at it
> > half a year from now who doesn't have the background of the discussion
> > leading to these changes.
>
> Ok, how does the following sound?
>
> ""
> As of 654672d4ba1 (locking/atomics: Add _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants
> of some atomic operations) and 6d79ef2d30e (locking, asm-generic: Add
> _{relaxed|acquire|release}() variants for 'atomic_long_t'), weakly ordered
> archs can benefit from more relaxed use of barriers when locking and
> unlocking,
> instead of regular full barrier semantics. While currently only arm64 supports
> such optimizations, updating corresponding locking primitives serves for other
> archs to immediately benefit as well, once the necessary machinery is
> implemented
> of course.
> ""
>
> It's not _that_ different from the original changelong, but it should allow
> future readers to at least be able to easily see the context of where the
> changes come from. I don't think it's of much use going into the actual code
> changes as they are pretty obvious -- and the ones that aren't (ie relaxed)
> have the justification in the comments.
Ok, care to resend the whole thing?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-29 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-21 20:17 [PATCH 0/5] locking: Use acquire/release semantics Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-21 20:17 ` [PATCH 1/5] asm-generic: Add _{relaxed|acquire|release}() variants for inc/dec atomics Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-21 20:17 ` [PATCH 2/5] locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-21 20:17 ` [PATCH 3/5] locking/rtmutex: " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-22 15:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-22 15:55 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-24 1:06 ` [PATCH v2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-27 10:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-28 19:49 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-29 20:57 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2015-09-21 20:17 ` [PATCH 4/5] locking/rwsem: " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-21 20:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-24 1:09 ` [PATCH v2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-21 20:17 ` [PATCH 5/5] locking/mcs: " Davidlohr Bueso
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=alpine.DEB.2.11.1509292256010.4500@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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