On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:26:40PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:21:22PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > Included in it are some of the details on this subject, because a wakeup > > > > has two prior states that are of importance, the tasks own prior state > > > > and the wakeup state, both should be considered in the 'program order' > > > > flow. > > > > > > > > > > Great and very helpful ;-) > > > > > > > So maybe we can reduce the description in memory-barriers to this > > > > 'split' program order guarantee, where a woken task must observe both > > > > its own prior state and its wakee state. > > > ^^^^^ > > > I think you mean "waker" here, right? > > > > Yes. > > > > > And the waker is not necessarily the same task who set the @cond to > > > true, right? > > > > It should be. > > > > > If so, I feel like it's really hard to *use* this 'split' > > > program order guarantee in other places than sleep/wakeup itself. Could > > > you give an example? Thank you. > > > > It was not meant to be used in any other scenario; the 'split' PO really > > is part of the whole sleep/wakeup. It does not apply to anything else. > > Got it. So at this point, I think it's better to remove the entire > "Sleep and wake-up functions" section in memory-barriers.txt. Because > this order guarantee is not for other users except sleep/wakeup. Any > concern, Paul? The concern I have with just removing it is that it is all too easy for people to assume that they provide ordering. So we should at least have a section stating clearly that ordering is not guaranteed without help from locks, release-acquire, explicit memory barriers, etc. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
