On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference > > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they > > interact. > > Hoping my memory-barrier.txt patch helps here... Yes, that seems a good start. But yesterday you raised the 'fun' point of two globally ordered sequences connected by a single local link. And I think I'm still confused on LWSYNC (in the smp_wmb case) when one of the stores looses a conflict, and if that scenario matters. If it does, we should inspect the same case for other barriers. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
