Re: [thiscpuops upgrade 10/10] Lockless (and preemptless) fastpathsfor slub

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >> > The critical section begins with the retrieval of the tid and it ends with
> >> > the replacement of the tid with the newly generated one. This means that
> >> > all state data for the alloc and free operation needs to be retrieved in
> >> > that critical section. The change must be saved with the final
> >> > cmpxchg_double of the critical section.
> >>
> >> Right and we don't need a *memory barrier* here because we're
> >> accessing a per-CPU variable which means operations appear in-order.
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The compiler is still free to rearrange the tid fetch. A possible
> > optimization that the compiler may do is to move the tid fetch into the
> > next if statement since that is the only block in which the tid variable
> > is actually used.
>
> Yes, which is why we need a *compiler barrier* but not a *memory barrier*.

Exactly. That is the reason there is a compiler barrier there. A memory
barrier would be smp_mb() or so.

--
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/