On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:45:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 09:36:15PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Place this after a control barrier (such as e.g. a spin_unlock_wait())
> > + * to ensure that reads cannot be moved ahead of the control_barrier.
> > + * Writes do not need a barrier, they are not speculated and thus cannot
> > + * pass the control barrier.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef smp_mb__after_control_barrier
> > +#define smp_mb__after_control_barrier() smp_rmb()
> > +#endif
>
> Sorry to go bike shedding again; but should we call this:
>
> smp_acquire__after_control_barrier() ?
>
> The thing is; its not a full MB because:
>
> - stores might actually creep into it; while the control dependency
> guarantees stores will not creep out, nothing is stopping them from
> getting in;
>
> - its not transitive, and our MB is defined to be so.
>
> Oleg, Paul?
The idea is that this would become a no-op on x86, s390, sparc &c, an isb
instruction on ARM, an isync instruction on Power, and I cannot remember
what on Itanium? The other idea being to provide read-to-read control
ordering in addition to the current read-to-write control ordering?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
