Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In any case, its all moot now, since Paul no longer requires schedule() to imply 
> a full barrier.
>
> [...]

Nevertheless from a least-surprise POV it might be worth guaranteeing it, because 
I bet there's tons of code that assumes that schedule() is a heavy operation and 
it's such an easy mistake to make. Since we are so close to having that guarantee, 
we might as well codify it?

Just like system calls are assumed to be barriers in general - and system calls 
are more lightweight than schedule() ...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/