lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 02/25] mm/swap: Don't abuse the seqcount latching API
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 05:17:05PM +0200, Sebastian A. Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-05-22 16:57:07 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > @@ -725,21 +735,48 @@ void lru_add_drain_all(void)
> > > if (WARN_ON(!mm_percpu_wq))
> > > return;
> > >
> >
> > > + this_gen = READ_ONCE(lru_drain_gen);
> > > + smp_rmb();
> >
> > this_gen = smp_load_acquire(&lru_drain_gen);
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&lock);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > + * (C) Exit the draining operation if a newer generation, from another
> > > + * lru_add_drain_all(), was already scheduled for draining. Check (A).
> > > */
> > > + if (unlikely(this_gen != lru_drain_gen))
> > > goto done;
> > >
> >
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(lru_drain_gen, lru_drain_gen + 1);
> > > + smp_wmb();
> >
> > You can leave this smp_wmb() out and rely on the smp_mb() implied by
> > queue_work_on()'s test_and_set_bit().
>
> This is to avoid smp_store_release() ?

store_release would have the barrier on the other end. If you read the
comments (I so helpfully cut out) you'll see it wants to order against
later stores, not ealier.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-22 18:25    [W:0.097 / U:6.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site