Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
>> +
>> +void rcu_read_lock(void)
>> +{
>> + if (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++ == 0) {
>> + current->rcu_data = &get_cpu_var(rcu_data);
>> + atomic_inc(¤t->rcu_data->active_readers);
>> + put_cpu_var(rcu_data);
>>
>> Need an smp_mb() here for non-x86 CPUs. Otherwise, the CPU can
>> re-order parts of the critical section to precede the rcu_read_lock().
>> Could precede the put_cpu_var(), but why increase latency?
>
> ok. It's enough to put a barrier into the else branch here, because the
> atomic op in the main brain is a barrier by itself.
Since the else branch is only taken when rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0, do
we need the barrier at all?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/
