Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:50:15 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 17:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/07, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > Actually, thinking about it more, to appropriately support x86, as well > > as powerpc, arm and mips, we would need something like: > > > > read_lock_smp_mb() > > > > Which would be a read_lock with an included memory barrier. > > Then we need read_lock_irq_smp_mb, read_lock_irqsave__smp_mb, write_lock_xxx, > otherwise it is not clear why only read_lock() has _smp_mb() version. > > The same for spin_lock_xxx...
At which time the smp_mb__{before,after}_{un,}lock become attractive again.
| |