Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Gaurantee spinlocks implicit barrier for !PREEMPT_COUNT

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>     +/* This is only a barrier to other asms. Notably get_user/put_user */
>>
>> Probably should add in the comment:
>>
>>         " or anything else that can cause a hidden schedule. "
>>
>
> Fair enough. And I just remembered why I thought UP was special - we
> need to do the same thing about spinlocks, for the same reasons.
>
> So that "asm_barrier()" should probably be in <linux/compiler.h> along
> with the "normal" barrier() definition.
>

I'm a moron.

Yes, "asm_barrier()" is a valid barrier for asms. But without the
"memory" clobber, it doesn't actually end up being a barrier to any
normal C loads and stores from memory, so it doesn't actually help.

So I suspect we need to just make UP spinlocks and preemption
enable/disable be full compiler barriers after all.

Something like the attached (still untested, although it seems to at
least compile) patch. Comments?

                    Linus

Attachment: patch.diff
Description: Binary data