Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Mon Aug 31 2015 - 16:41:00 EST

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 08:33:35PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/31, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >
> > Fair enough, I went too far. How about just a single paragraph saying
> > that:
> >
> > The wake_up(), wait_event() and their friends have proper barriers in
> > them, but these implicity barriers are only for the correctness for
> > sleep and wakeup. So don't rely on these barriers for things that are
> > neither wait-conditons nor task states.
> >
> > Is that OK to you?
> Ask Paul ;) but personally I agree.
> To me, the only thing a user should know about wake_up/try_to_wake_up
> and barriers is that you do not need another barrier between setting
> condition and waking up.

Sounds like an excellent idea in general. But could you please show me
a short code snippet illustrating where you don't need the additional
barrier, even if the fastpaths are taken so that there is no sleep and
no wakeup?

Thanx, Paul

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at