On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
On 06/16/2016 09:11 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a
variables with the osq_lock.
So one problem I have with all this is that if we are hardening
osq_lock/unlock()
because of some future use that is specific to rwsems, then we
will immediately
be hurting mutexes for no good reason.
I am going to change it to use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() as
suggested by PeterZ. Is that a good enough compromise? I have also
changed the xchg in the unlock side to xchg_release which could help
performance in some archs. The thing is when developers see the name
osq_lock/osq_unlock, they will naturally assume the proper barrriers
are provided which is not currently the case.
Oh, from your discussions with Boqun, I was under the impression that ->locked
was now going to be properly ordered in all cases now, which is why
I worry about mutexes.
Anyway, the change won't affect x86, it is probably ARM or PPC that
may have an impact.
Yes, that xchg() won't affect x86, but adding an smp_store_release(node->locked, 1)
or such will obviously.
nm this last part, you're right, x86 smp_store_release is a nop.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
