On 09/24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:03:59 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 09/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +static inline void get_online_cpus(void)
> > > +{
> > > + might_sleep();
> > > +
> > > + if (current->cpuhp_ref++) {
> > > + barrier();
> > > + return;
> >
> > I don't undestand this barrier()... we are going to return if we already
> > hold the lock, do we really need it?
>
> I'm confused too. Unless gcc moves this after the release, but the
> release uses preempt_disable() which is its own barrier.
>
> If anything, it requires a comment.
And I am still confused even after emails from Paul and Peter...
If gcc can actually do something wrong, then I suspect this barrier()
should be unconditional.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>