lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH for-3.3] mempool: clean up and document synchronization and memory barrier usage
Hello,

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 06:40:58PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > The first paragraph is saying that at that point full barrier (for
> > both stores and loads) is necessary at that point and the second
> > paragraph is a bit confusing but the last sentence seems to say that
> > only loads after the unlock can creep above unlock,
>
> Probably, this is because the comment tries to explain the possible
> reordering with the subsequent "if (condition)" check, so it only
> mentions loads.

Ah, I see.

> > Anyways, yeah, you're right. We need a smp_wmb() before returning but
> > I think the comment on top of prepare_to_wait() is misleading.
>
> Hmm. I am not sure I understand... Although almost everything written
> in English looks misleading to me ;)

Amen. :) I missed the context there, so please forget about it.

> > Great, thanks. I'll wait a bit for futher comments and repost w/
> > smp_wmb() added.
>
> Well. This is almost off-topic, but perhaps we can add
> smp_mb__after_unlock() ? We already have smp_mb__after_lock.
> Afaics prepare_to_wait() could use it.
>
> I am not talking about perfomance issues, just I think the code
> will be more understandable.

Hmmm... maybe. I really don't know.

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-21 19:55    [W:0.055 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site