On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:45:03AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:53:33PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > The other option is to weaken lock semantics so that unlock-lock no > > longer implies a full barrier, but I believe that we would regret taking > > that path. (It would be OK by me, I would just add a few smp_mb() > > calls on various slowpaths in RCU. But...) > > Please no, I know we rely on it in a number of places, I just can't > remember where all those were :/ ;-) ;-) ;-) Yeah, I would also have to overprovision smp_mb()s in a number of places. Then again, I know that I don't rely on this on any of RCU's fastpaths. Thanx, Paul -- 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>