On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:48:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:33:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > While we're there, the acquire in osq_wait_next() seems somewhat ill > > > documented too. > > > > > > I _think_ we need ACQUIRE semantics there because we want to strictly > > > order the lock-unqueue A,B,C steps and we get that with: > > > > > > A: SC > > > B: ACQ > > > C: Relaxed > > > > > > Similarly for unlock we want the WRITE_ONCE to happen after > > > osq_wait_next, but in that case we can even rely on the control > > > dependency there. > > > > Even for the lock-unqueue case, isn't B->C ordered by a control dependency > > because C consists only of stores? > > Hmm, indeed. So we could go fully relaxed on it I suppose, since the > same is true for the unlock site.
In which case, we should be able to relax the xchg in there (osq_wait_next) too, right? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/