Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:49:02PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:40:04AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > 
> > I cannot resist suggesting that any lock that interacts with
> > spin_unlock_wait() must have all relevant acquisitions followed by
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
> > 
> 
> But
> 
> 1.	This would expand the purpose of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(),
> 	right? smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is for making UNLOCK-LOCK
> 	pair global transitive rather than guaranteeing no operations
> 	can be reorder before the STORE part of LOCK/ACQUIRE.

Indeed it would.  Which might be OK.

> 2.	If ARM64 has the same problem as PPC now,
> 	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() can't help, as it's a no-op on
> 	ARM64.

Agreed, and that is why we need Will to weigh in.

							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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/