lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:09:50PM +0100, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > On 07/13/2015 08:15 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is used to promote an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence
> > > into a full memory barrier.
> > >
> > > However:
> > >
> > > - This ordering guarantee is already provided without the barrier on
> > > all architectures apart from PowerPC
> > >
> > > - The barrier only applies to UNLOCK + LOCK, not general
> > > RELEASE + ACQUIRE operations
> >
> > I'm unclear what you mean here: do you mean
> > A) a memory barrier is not required between RELEASE M + ACQUIRE N when you
> > want to maintain distinct order between those operations on all arches
> > (with the possible exception of PowerPC), or,
> > B) no one is using smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in that way right now.
>
> My understanding is (B), but Peter and I don't seem to agree yet!
> I'll tighten up the text once we reach a conclusion.

I'm fairly sure (but I've not looked) that nobody does in fact rely on
this.

So I'm in agreement with B, and I'm quibbling on what exactly A means
;-)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-13 18:21    [W:0.163 / U:24.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site