Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:47:48 +0200 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock |
| |
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 05:23:18PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Mathieu Desnoyers a écrit : > > > But read_lock + smp_mb__after_lock + read_unlock is not well suited for > > powerpc, arm, mips and probably others where there is an explicit memory > > barrier at the end of the read lock primitive. > > > > One thing that would be efficient for all architectures is to create a > > locking primitive that contains the smp_mb, e.g.: > > > > read_lock_smp_mb() > > > > which would act as a read_lock which does a full smp_mb after the lock > > is taken. > > > > The naming may be a bit odd, better ideas are welcome. > > I see your point now, thanks for your patience. > > Jiri, I think your first patch can be applied (including the full smp_mb()), > then we will optimize both for x86 and other arches, when all > arch maintainers have a chance to change > "read_lock();smp_mb()" to a faster "read_lock_mb()" or something :) >
great, I saw you Signed-off the 1/2 part.. could I leave it, or do I need to resend as a single patch?
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/
| |