Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64
From: Will Deacon
Date: Wed Oct 28 2015 - 06:40:28 EST
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 07:40:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:19:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > ... and the 'normal' code will have a control hazard somewhere, followed
> > by the implicit ISB in exception return, so there's a barrier of sorts
> > there too.
> Which exception return?
The return to userspace after the interrupt/fault/system call that got us
into the kernel.
> > The problem is that people say "full barrier" without defining what it
> > really means, and we end up going round the houses on things like
> > transitivity (which ctrl + isb doesn't always give you).
> I pretty much meant smp_mb() here :-)
In which case, we don't provide the transitivity guarantees that you would
get from an 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/