lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pi-futex: set PF_EXITING without taking ->pi_lock

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:

> static inline void ccids_read_lock(void)
> {
> atomic_inc(&ccids_lockct);
> spin_unlock_wait(&ccids_lock);
> }
>
> This looks racy, in theory atomic_inc() and spin_unlock_wait() could
> be re-ordered. However, in this particular case we have an "optimized"
> smp_mb_after_atomic_inc(), perhaps it is good that the caller can
> choose the "right" barrier by hand.

_all_ default locking and atomic APIs should be barrier-safe i believe.
(and that includes atomic_inc() too) Most people dont have barriers on
their mind when their code. _If_ someone is barrier-conscious then we
should have barrier-less APIs too for that purpose of squeezing the last
half cycle out of the code, but it should be a non-default choice. The
reason: nobody notices an unnecessary barrier, but a missing barrier can
be nasty.

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-21 17:23    [W:0.142 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site