Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation
From: Petr Mladek
Date: Thu Jun 27 2019 - 04:28:08 EST
On Wed 2019-06-26 23:43:56, John Ogness wrote:
> Here is where I have massive problems communicating. I don't understand
> why you say the barrier is _between_ newest and next. I would say the
> barrier is _on_ newest to _synchronize_ with next (or something). I am
> struggling with terminology. (To be honest, I'd much rather just post
> litmus tests.)
> For example, if we have:
> WRITE_ONCE(&a, 1);
> WRITE_ONCE(&b, 1);
> WRITE_ONCE(&c, 1);
> smp_store_release(&d, 1);
> local_d = smp_load_acquire(&d);
> local_a = READ_ONCE(&a);
> local_b = READ_ONCE(&b);
> local_c = READ_ONCE(&c);
> How do you describe that? Do you say the memory barrier is between a and
> d? Or between a, b, c, d? (a, b, c aren't ordered, but they are one-way
> synchronized with d).
> I would say there is a barrier on d to synchronize a, b, c.
Barriers are always paired. We need to know what variables are
synchonized against each other, what is the reason and where
is the counter part.
I think that it might be done many ways. I am familiar with
bariers in kernel/livepatch/ code. They use rather long description.
But I find it pretty useful especially when the problem is
complicated and more bariers are involved in a single