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, 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:
>
>
> > > An unlock followed by a lock needs to act like a full barrier, but there
> > > is no requirement that a lock or unlock taken separately act like a
> > > full barrier.
> >
> > But that is already a property of the acquisition/release barrier.
>
> As I mentioned in my fixes for the -rt swait barrier patches I sent.

Not to me you didn't ;-)

> 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?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-28 16:01    [W:0.059 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site