Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:23:45 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking cycles |
| |
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 02/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:53:34PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 02/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > | mb | wmb | rmb | rbd | acq | rel | ctl | > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > mb | Y | | Y | y | Y | | Y + > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > wmb | Y | | Y | y | Y | | Y + > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > rmb | | | | | | | + > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > rbd | | | | | | | + > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > acq | | | | | | | + > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > rel | Y | | Y | y | Y | | Y + > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > ctl | | | | | | | + > > > > -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ > > > > > > OK, so "acq" can't pair with "acq", and I am not sure I understand. > > > > Please consider the table in the context of message passing; that is > > what Paul proposed. Your example from sysvsems, while interesting, would > > not fit the general scenario of message passing. > > Ah, yeeees, sorry. Somehow I completely missed that part of Paul's email. > > > This too illustrates a problem with that approach, people can't read, so > > they'll pick the wrong table to look at. > > At least we know that I certainly can't ;)
Nobody can! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
|  |