[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:23:16PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:21:22PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >> 4)
> >>spin_unlock_wait() and spin_unlock() pair
> >>
> >>
> >>The data from the simple op must be observed by the following
> >>complex op. Right now, there is still an smp_rmb() in line 300: The
> >>control barrier from the loop inside spin_unlock_wait() is upgraded
> >>to an acquire barrier by an additional smp_rmb(). Is this smp_rmb()
> >>required? If I understand commit 2c6100227116 ("locking/qspinlock:
> >>Fix spin_unlock_wait() some more") right, with this commit qspinlock
> >>handle this case without the smp_rmb(). What I don't know if powerpc
> >>is using qspinlock already, or if powerpc works without the
> >>smp_rmb(). -- Manfred|
> No, ppc doesn't use qspinlocks, but as mentioned, spin_unlock_wait for
> tickets are now at least an acquire (ppc is stronger), which match that
> unlock store-release you are concerned about, this is as of 726328d92a4
> (locking/spinlock, arch: Update and fix spin_unlock_wait() implementations).
> This is exactly what you are doing by upgrading the ctrl dependency
> to the acquire barrier in
> and therefore we don't need it explicitly -- it also makes the comment
> wrt spin_unlock_wait obsolete. Or am I'm misunderstanding you?

Ah, I was looking at 4.7 rather than current mainline. Perhaps Manfred
was doing the same.

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-11 01:41    [W:0.068 / U:0.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site