lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-28 15:41    [W:0.057 / U:3.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site