Re: [PATCH 00/18] x86: Ticket lock + cmpxchg cleanup

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On 08/24/2011 04:21 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> However, the reason I disagree with it is that I don't think that it's
>> any prettier at all to have the two barriers than it is to just have
>> the asm.
> .. and btw, we probably do need *both* barriers. We definitely need
> the one before. The one after is a bit less obvious, since it is
> technically legal for code to move into the locked region. However,
> it's not necessarily a *good* idea for code to move into the locked
> region, so the two barriers are likely the RightThing(tm).

Originally I left the second barrier off for that reason, but I got
mysterious lockups.  The second barrier fixed them, so I never got
around to do a full root-cause analysis.

I still think the C version is more straightforward given that the asm
version is confused with the details of the ticket sizes, etc.  But,
shrug, its a pretty minor detail.

The OOSTORE stuff is a complete red herring; I bet its been *years*
since someone specifically compiled a kernel with OOSTORE SMP support
because they actually wanted to use it.

    J
--
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/