On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 07:28:16PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >We need the full barrier to serialize STORE's as well, but probably we can
> >rely on control dependancy and thus we only need rmb().
> Do we need a full barrier or not?
>
> I don't manage to create a proper line of reasoning.
I think I agree with Oleg in that we only need the smp_rmb(); of course
that wants a somewhat elaborate comment to go along with it. How about
something like so:
spin_unlock_wait(&local);
/*
* The above spin_unlock_wait() forms a control dependency with
* any following stores; because we must first observe the lock
* unlocked and we cannot speculate stores.
*
* Subsequent loads however can easily pass through the loads
* represented by spin_unlock_wait() and therefore we need the
* read barrier.
*
* This together is stronger than ACQUIRE for @local and
* therefore we will observe the complete prior critical section
* of @local.
*/
smp_rmb();
The obvious alternative is using spin_unlock_wait() with an
smp_load_acquire(), but that might be more expensive on some archs due
to repeated issuing of memory barriers.
--
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/
