Re: [PATCH] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and update documentation

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:49:18PM +0100, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Will,

Hello,

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 05:13:30PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +If necessary, ordering can be enforced by use of an
> > +smp_mb__release_acquire() barrier:
> > +
> > +	*A = a;
> > +	RELEASE M
> > +	smp_mb__release_acquire();
> 
> Should this barrier be placed after the ACQUIRE? Because we do actually
> want(?) and allow RELEASE and ACQUIRE operations to reorder in this
> case, like your following example, right?

I think it's a lot simpler to keep it where it is, in all honesty. The
relaxation for the RELEASE/ACQUIRE access ordering is mainly there to
allow architectures building those operations out of explicit barriers
to get away without a definition of smp_mb__release_acquire.

Will
--
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/