On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:02:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Locally I've made this:
>
> __atomic_acquire_fence()
> __atomic_release_fence()
> __atomic_pre_fence()
> __atomic_post_fence()
>
> ... but I'm more than happy to rename however you prefer.
No that's fine. As long as we're rid of
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:02:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Locally I've made this:
>
> __atomic_acquire_fence()
> __atomic_release_fence()
> __atomic_pre_fence()
> __atomic_post_fence()
>
> ... but I'm more than happy to rename however you prefer.
No that's fine. As long as we're rid of
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:56:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > and simply using smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic for the full fence, its
> > > exactly what they
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:56:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > and simply using smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic for the full fence, its
> > > exactly what they
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > and simply using smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic for the full fence, its
> > exactly what they were made for.
>
> The snag is arch/alpha, whare we have:
>
> /*
> *
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > and simply using smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic for the full fence, its
> > exactly what they were made for.
>
> The snag is arch/alpha, whare we have:
>
> /*
> *
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:07:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > +#ifndef __atomic_mb__after_acquire
> > +#define __atomic_mb__after_acquire smp_mb__after_atomic
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#ifndef __atomic_mb__before_release
> >
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:07:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > +#ifndef __atomic_mb__after_acquire
> > +#define __atomic_mb__after_acquire smp_mb__after_atomic
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#ifndef __atomic_mb__before_release
> >
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:07:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> +#ifndef __atomic_mb__after_acquire
> +#define __atomic_mb__after_acquire smp_mb__after_atomic
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef __atomic_mb__before_release
> +#define __atomic_mb__before_release smp_mb__before_atomic
> +#endif
> +
>
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:07:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> +#ifndef __atomic_mb__after_acquire
> +#define __atomic_mb__after_acquire smp_mb__after_atomic
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef __atomic_mb__before_release
> +#define __atomic_mb__before_release smp_mb__before_atomic
> +#endif
> +
>
Currently architectures can override __atomic_op_*() to define the barriers
used before/after a relaxed atomic when used to build acquire/release/fence
variants.
This has the unfortunate property of requiring the architecture to define the
full wrapper for the atomics, rather than just the
Currently architectures can override __atomic_op_*() to define the barriers
used before/after a relaxed atomic when used to build acquire/release/fence
variants.
This has the unfortunate property of requiring the architecture to define the
full wrapper for the atomics, rather than just the
12 matches
Mail list logo
