On 7/5/2018 8:31 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 10:21:36AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> At any rate, it looks like instead of strengthening the relation, I >> should write a patch that removes it entirely. I also will add new, >> stronger relations for use with locking, essentially making spin_lock >> and spin_unlock be RCsc. > > Only in the presence of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or > smp_mb__after_spinlock(), correct? Or am I confused about RCsc? > > Thanx, Paul >
In terms of naming...is what you're asking for really RCsc? To me, that would imply that even stores in the first critical section would need to be ordered before loads in the second critical section. Meaning that even x86 would need an mfence in either lock() or unlock()? If you're only looking for R->R, R->W, and W->W ordering between critical sections, is it better to find a new unique name for this? "RCtso" possibly, or something to that effect? Dan
