On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote: > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote on 10/30/2013 01:25:26 PM: > > > Also, I'm not entirely sure on C, that too seems like a dependency, we > > simply cannot read the buffer @tail before we've read the tail itself, > > now can we? Similarly we cannot compare tail to head without having the > > head read completed. > > No, this one we cannot omit, because our problem on consumer side is not > with @tail, which is written exclusively by consumer, but with @head.
Ah indeed, my argument was flawed in that @head is the important part. But we still do a comparison of @tail against @head before we do further reads. Although I suppose speculative reads are allowed -- they don't have the destructive behaviour speculative writes have -- and thus we could in fact get reorder issues. But since it is still a dependent load in that we do that @tail vs @head comparison before doing other loads, wouldn't a read_barrier_depends() be sufficient? Or do we still need a complete rmb? > BTW, it is why you also don't need ACCESS_ONCE() around @tail, but only > around > @head read. Agreed, the ACCESS_ONCE() around tail is superfluous since we're the one updating tail, so there's no problem with the value changing unexpectedly. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
