On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:27:24AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>In any case, its fairly simple to cure, just add
>smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() at the end. If we bail because
>need_resched() we don't need the acquire I think.
I was just considering this for your smp_cond_acquire/smp_cond_load_acquire
Right, so that need_resched break makes that a bit awkward. Not to
mention the cpu_relaxed() vs cpu_relaxed_lowlatency() difference.
Oh sure, I was merely refering to the ordering semantics, not the calls
themselves -- although at some point, as archs begin to port locking/core
optimizations, we _will_ need the variants for dealing with '_lowlatency'.
rework, so yeah I guess an smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep would be a nice
compromise.
However, I was always under the impression that races with node->locked were
rather harmless (as indicated in the mentioned commit) -- which is why ->locked
are simple load/stores, with the exception of the unqueueing -- but yeah, that's
not even paired.
Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a
variables with the osq_lock.
*sigh*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
