lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 14/15] futex: convert futex_pi_state.refcount to refcount_t
Date
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:24:16PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:33AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > > Actually on the second thought: does the above memory ordering differences
> > > > really apply when we have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT? To me it looks like the way
> > > > how it is currently implemented for x86 is the same way as it is for atomic
> cases.
> > >
> > > Never look to x86 for memory ordering, its boring.
> > >
> > > And yes, for the ARM implementation it can certainly make a difference.
> >
> > So, yes, what I am trying to say is that it can really depend if you have
> ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT
> > enabled or not and then also based on architecture. Thus I believe is also true for
> atomic: there
> > might be differences when you use arch. dependent version of function or not.
>
> So the generic one in lib/refcount.c is already weaker on ARM, they
> don't need to do a ARCH specific 'fast' implementation for the
> difference to show up.

But can they make "fast" implementation on ARM that would give stronger memory guarantees?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-01 19:05    [W:0.078 / U:1.176 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site