Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:06:48 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 |
| |
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:55:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > arm64 indeed does not have a dmb after spin_lock, it only has a > load-acquire. So with the default smp_mb__before_spinlock() + > spin_lock we have: > > smp_wmb() > loop > load-acquire > store > > So (I think) this guarantees that any writes before wmb+lock would be > visible before any reads _and_ writes after wmb+lock. However, the > ordering with reads before wmb+lock is not guaranteed.
That is my understanding as well, and stores could creep up from below the unlock and then the reads and those stores can cross and you've lost.
In any case, its all moot now, since Paul no longer requires schedule() to imply a full barrier.
| |