lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/9] firewire: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK
On 02/21/2014 06:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 06:01:29PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is only for ordering memory operations
>> between two spin-locked sections on either the same lock or by
>> the same task/cpu. Like:
>>
>> i = 1
>> spin_unlock(lock1)
>> spin_lock(lock2)
>> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
>> j = 1
>>
>> This guarantees that the store to j happens after the store to i.
>> Without it, a cpu can
>>
>> spin_lock(lock2)
>> j = 1
>> i = 1
>> spin_unlock(lock1)
> ;
> Hmmm? I'm pretty sure that's a full barrier. Local processor is
> always in order (w.r.t. the compiler).

It's a long story but the short version is that
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt recently was overhauled to reflect
what cpus actually do and what the different archs actually
deliver.

Turns out that unlock + lock is not guaranteed by all archs to be
a full barrier. Thus the smb_mb__after_unlock_lock().

This is now all spelled out in memory-barriers.txt under the
sub-heading "IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS".

Regards,
Peter Hurley



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-22 01:41    [W:0.153 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site