Re: [patch 1/3] Create spin lock/spin unlock with distinct memorybarrier

[Nick Piggin]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 03:52:55PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> +/*
> + * X86 spinlock-mb mappings. Use standard spinlocks with acquire/release
> + * semantics. Associated memory barriers are defined as no-ops, because the
> + * spinlock LOCK-prefixed atomic operations imply a full memory barrier.
> + */
> +
> +#define spin_lock__no_acquire			spin_lock
> +#define spin_unlock__no_release			spin_unlock
> +
> +#define spin_lock_irq__no_acquire		spin_lock_irq
> +#define spin_unlock_irq__no_release		spin_unlock_irq
> +
> +#define raw_spin_lock__no_acquire		raw_spin_lock
> +#define raw_spin_unlock__no_release		raw_spin_unlock
> +
> +#define raw_spin_lock_irq__no_acquire		raw_spin_lock_irq
> +#define raw_spin_unlock_irq__no_release		raw_spin_unlock_irq
> +
> +#define smp_acquire__after_spin_lock()		do { } while (0)
> +#define smp_release__before_spin_unlock()	do { } while (0)
> +
> +#define smp_mb__after_spin_lock()		do { } while (0)
> +#define smp_mb__before_spin_unlock()		do { } while (0)

Oh, and that one's wrong. loads can pass spin_unlock on x86 so it
needs to be smp_mb().

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/