lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:06:05AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > In any case, its all moot now, since Paul no longer requires schedule() to imply
> > a full barrier.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Nevertheless from a least-surprise POV it might be worth guaranteeing it, because
> I bet there's tons of code that assumes that schedule() is a heavy operation and
> it's such an easy mistake to make. Since we are so close to having that guarantee,
> we might as well codify it?

FWIW, the arm64 __switch_to() has a heavy barrier (DSB) but the reason
for this was to cope with potentially interrupted cache or TLB
maintenance (which require a DSB on the same CPU) and thread migration
to another CPU.

--
Catalin



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-19 17:41    [W:0.063 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site