[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked()
On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 15:13 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >
> > So unless it's very performance sensitive, I'd rather have things like
> > spin_is_locked be conservative by default and provide simpler ordering
> > semantics.
> Well, it might not be "very performance sensitive" but allow me to say
> that "40+ SYNCs in stuff like BUG_ON or such" is sadness to my eyes ;),

In the fast path or the trap case ? Because the latter doesn't matter
at all...

> especially when considered that our "high level API" provides means to
> avoid this situation (e.g., smp_mb__after_spinlock(); BTW, if you look
> at architectures for which this macro is "non-trivial", you can get an
> idea of the architectures which "wouldn't work"; of course, x86 is not
> among these). Yes, we do appear to have different views on what is to
> be considered the "simpler ordering semantics". I'm willing to change
> mine _as soon as_ this gets documented: would you be willing to send a
> patch (on the lines of my [1]) to describe/document such semantics?

Not really :-) Just expressing an opinion. I don't fully object to your
approach, just saying it's open for debate.

At this point, I have too many other things to chase to follow up too
much on this.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-27 23:53    [W:0.064 / U:2.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site