Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:51:40 +0200 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock |
| |
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 07:47:31AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:41:26AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:39:04AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > Jiri Olsa a écrit : > > > > > Adding smp_mb__after_lock define to be used as a smp_mb call after > > > > > a lock. > > > > > > > > > > Making it nop for x86, since {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are > > > > > full memory barriers. > > > > > > > > > > wbr, > > > > > jirka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should remind that sk_has_helper() is always called > > > > right after a call to read_lock() as in : > > > > > > > > read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock); > > > > if (sk_has_sleeper(sk)) > > > > wake_up_interruptible_all(sk->sk_sleep); > > > > > > Agreed, that'd be to have it in the source code comment. > > > > > > > > > - Davide > > > > > > > ok, I'll add it to the 1/2 part in v5 > > > > Btw., there is a tiny typo: > > - receive callbacks. Adding fuctions sock_poll_wait and sock_has_sleeper > + receive callbacks. Adding fuctions sock_poll_wait and sk_has_sleeper > > Jarek P.
thanks, jirka -- 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/
| |