Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc,msg: provide barrier pairings for lockless receive

2015-06-04 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 11:41 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 19:57 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > On 05/30/2015 02:03 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to > > > to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still > > > perf

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc,msg: provide barrier pairings for lockless receive

2015-06-04 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 19:57 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > On 05/30/2015 02:03 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to > > to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still > > performing on the sender side wakeup. We lack however, > > the proper CP

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc,msg: provide barrier pairings for lockless receive

2015-06-04 Thread Manfred Spraul
On 05/30/2015 02:03 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still performing on the sender side wakeup. We lack however, the proper CPU-CPU interactions pairing on the receiver side which busy-waits for the

[PATCH 2/2] ipc,msg: provide barrier pairings for lockless receive

2015-05-29 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still performing on the sender side wakeup. We lack however, the proper CPU-CPU interactions pairing on the receiver side which busy-waits for the message. Similarly, we do not need a full smp_mb,