lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] locking: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock()
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:41:19PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> - * This barrier must provide two things:
> - *
> - * - it must guarantee a STORE before the spin_lock() is ordered against a
> - * LOAD after it, see the comments at its two usage sites.
> - *
> - * - it must ensure the critical section is RCsc.
> - *
> - * The latter is important for cases where we observe values written by other
> - * CPUs in spin-loops, without barriers, while being subject to scheduling.
> - *
> - * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> - *
> - * for (;;) {
> - * if (READ_ONCE(X))
> - * break;
> - * }
> - * X=1
> - * <sched-out>
> - * <sched-in>
> - * r = X;
> - *
> - * without transitivity it could be that CPU1 observes X!=0 breaks the loop,
> - * we get migrated and CPU2 sees X==0.

Please don't remove that; that explains _why_ we need a full memory
barrier here.

If anything, move it into __schedule() to explain the
smp_mb__after_spinlock() usage there.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-28 17:06    [W:0.223 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site