[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [tip:locking/core] locking/pvqspinlock: Replace xchg() by the more descriptive set_mb()
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> Hmm, so I looked at the set_mb() definitions and I figure we want to do
> something like the below, right?

I don't think you need to do this for the non-smp cases. The whole
thing is about smp memory ordering, so on UP you don't even need the
WRITE_ONCE(), much less a barrier.

That said, I do wonder if we should make that "it's only an smp
barrier" more explicit. We have non-smp barriers for people who do
DMA, and while they should probably never use anything like set_mb()
anyway (they tend to want *release* semantics, not a full barrier),
from a conceptual standpoint the "set_mb()" function really is closer
to the "smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire()" family of macros.

So I wonder if we should change the name to match.

IOW, if we are really cleaning up smp_mb() and changing most of the
lines associated with it (we really have very few users, and there
seems to be more lines *defining* smp_mb() than there are lines
*using* it in the kernel), maybe we should also just rename it
"smp_store_mb()" at the same time.

I dunno. Maybe the churn isn't worth it.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-11 20:01    [W:0.061 / U:15.720 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site