lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/6] percpu-refcount: implement percpu_ref_reinit() and percpu_ref_is_zero()
Hey, Paul.

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:27:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Yep, smp_load_acquire() orders its load against later loads and stores,
> so it really does need a memory barrier on weakly ordered systems.

Yeap.

> This is the "publish" operation for dynamically allocated per-CPU
> references? If so, agreed, you should be able to rely on dependency
> ordering. Make sure to comment the smp_read_barrier_depends(). ;-)

Definitely, there aren't many things which are more frustrating than
barriers w/o comments explaining their pairing. I'm pairing
store_release with read_barrier_depends as that's what RCU is doing.
Is this the preferred way now? I like the new store_release and
load_acquire as they document what's being barriered better but as Lai
suggested in another reply it does seem a bit unbalanced. I wonder
whether load_acquire_depends would make sense.

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-19 16:21    [W:0.090 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site