On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:35:53AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmm. Something just struck me when reading this patch..
>
> Our memory ordering semantics in our *current* locks are very very
> subtle. We have just a "barrier()" between the
>
> inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> if (inc.head == inc.tail)
> break; /* success */
>
> and the inside of the locked region.
>
> I think it's safe because of the new memory ordering semantics (loads
> are in-order, and stores only move *down*), but there's not even a
> comment about it.
>
> So let's at least comment the current locks before making them even
> more complex and subtle..
Would it make sense to have something like an smp_tso() that was a
compiler barrier for TSO systems (x86, s390, sparc, etc.) but that
emitted the needed memory-barrier instruction for weakly ordered systems?
Seems to me to be easy to do, and helps describe the intent better.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
