Re: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Sep 01 2015 - 05:44:10 EST
On 08/31, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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?
I guess I wasn't clear... All I tried to say is that
CONDITION = 1;
does not need any _additional_ barrier in between.
I mentioned this because afaics people are often unsure if this is true
or not, and to some degree this question initiated this discussion.
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/