Re: [PATCH] memory ordering in __kfifo primitives

From: Stelian Pop
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 16:26:02 EST

[open-iscsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx bouncing, removed from CC:]

Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 09:47 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :

> > Let's take this problem differently: is a memory barrier cheaper than a
> > spinlock ?
> Almost always, yes. But a spinlock is cheaper than a spinlock plus
> a pair of memory barriers.

Right, but I think we're optimizing too much here.

> > If the answer is yes as I suspect, why should the kfifo API force the
> > user to take a spinlock ?
> My concern is that currently a majority of the calls to __kfifo_{get,put}()
> are already holding a spinlock.
> But if you could send me your tests for lock-free __kfifo_{get,put}(),
> I would be happy to run them on weak-memory-consistency model machines
> with the memory barriers. And without the memory barriers -- we need
> a test that fails in the latter case to prove that the memory barriers
> really are in the right place and that all of them are present.
> Does this sound reasonable?

It would sound reasonable if I had any tests to send to you :)

Since I don't have any and since you're the one proposing the change, I
guess it's up to you to write them. :)

Stelian Pop <stelian@xxxxxxxxxx>

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at