Re: [patch 1/3] mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters

[Vladimir Davydov]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 05:41:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 03-10-14 19:36:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:07:48AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > > The barriers are implied in change-return atomics, which is why there
> > > is an xchg.  But it's clear that this needs to be documented.  This?:
> > 
> > With the comments it looks correct to me, but I wonder if we can always
> > rely on implicit memory barriers issued by atomic ops. Are there any
> > archs where it doesn't hold?
> 
> xchg is explcitly mentioned in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt so it
> is expected to be barrier on all archs. Besides that not all atomic ops
> imply memory barriers. Only those that "modifies some state in memory
> and returns information about the state" do.

Thank you for the info, now it's clear to me.

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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/