Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 May 2016 10:52:09 -0700 | Subject | Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > Paul has smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() for the RCpc 'upgrade'. How about > something like: > > smp_mb__after_lock()
I'd much rather make the naming be higher level. It's not necessarily going to be a "mb", and while the problem is about smp, the primitives it is synchronizing aren't actually smp-specific (ie you're synchronizing a lock that is relevant on UP too).
So I'd just call it something like
spin_lock_sync_after_lock();
because different locks might have different levels of serialization (ie maybe a spinlock needs one thing, and a mutex needs another - if we start worrying about ordering between spin_lock and mutex_is_locked(), for example, or between mutex_lock() and spin_is_locked()).
Hmm?
Linus
| |