Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:15:30 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation |
| |
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:05:29 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 08:59:57AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:19:37 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > Spin locks only prevent leaks out of the critical section. It does not > > guarantee leaks into the critical section, thus: > > What's your point? You're just re-iterating the semantics in case > anybody forgot about them?
I think we are all misunderstanding each other. It sounded like you didn't want to reimplement a lock to remove memory barriers.
Are you for the smp_mb__after_spin_unlock() ?
I'm getting confused by who is arguing what :-)
-- Steve
| |