On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:24:02AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:20:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:24:34PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > On 01/14/2016 12:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > >So SYNC_RMB is intended to implement smp_rmb(), correct? > > > Yes. > > > > > > > >You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to implement read_barrier_depends() and > > > >smp_read_barrier_depends(), but SYNC_RMB probably does not suffice. > > > > > > If smp_read_barrier_depends() is used to separate not only two reads > > > but read pointer and WRITE basing on that pointer (example below) - > > > yes. I just doesn't see any example of this in famous > > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and had no chance to know what you > > > use it in this way too. > > > > Well, Documentation/memory-barriers.txt was intended as a guide for Linux > > kernel hackers, and not for hardware architects. > > Yeah, this goes under the header: memory-barriers.txt is _NOT_ a > specification (I seem to keep repeating this). > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > commit 955720966e216b00613fcf60188d507c103f0e80 > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu Jan 14 14:17:04 2016 -0800 > > > > documentation: Subsequent writes ordered by rcu_dereference() > > > > The current memory-barriers.txt does not address the possibility of > > a write to a dereferenced pointer. This should be rare, > > How are these rare? Isn't: > > rcu_read_lock() > obj = rcu_dereference(ptr); > if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&obj->ref)) > obj = NULL; > rcu_read_unlock(); > > a _very_ common thing to do? It is, but it provides its own barriers, so does not need to rely on dependency ordering. Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
