Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:05:29 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [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?
| |