On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 14:54:03 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:27:08PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:23:54 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Interesting idea..
> > >
> > > So I'm not a fan of that raw_spin_lock wrapper, since that would
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:27:08PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:23:54 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Interesting idea..
> >
> > So I'm not a fan of that raw_spin_lock wrapper, since that would end up
> > with a lot more boiler-plate code than just the one extra barrie
On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:51:47 +0100
Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:23:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:17:26PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > It seems okay, but why not make it a special sched-only function name
> > > to prevent it being used
On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:23:54 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:17:26PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > /*
> > > + * This barrier must provide two things:
> > > + *
> > > + * - it must guarantee a STORE before the spin_lock() is ordered
> > > against a
> > > + * L
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:23:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:17:26PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > It seems okay, but why not make it a special sched-only function name
> > to prevent it being used in generic code?
> >
> > I would not mind seeing responsibility
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:17:26PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > /*
> > + * This barrier must provide two things:
> > + *
> > + * - it must guarantee a STORE before the spin_lock() is ordered against
> > a
> > + * LOAD after it, see the comments at its two usage sites.
> > + *
> > + *
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:37:53 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So recently I've had two separate issues that touched upon
> smp_mb__before_spinlock().
>
>
> Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to
> spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:17:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > > The second issue I wondered about is spinlock transitivity. All except
> > > powerpc have RCsc locks, and since Power already does a full mb, would
> > > it not ma
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > The second issue I wondered about is spinlock transitivity. All except
> > powerpc have RCsc locks, and since Power already does a full mb, would
> > it not make sense to put it _after_ the spin_lock(), which would provide
> > the sa
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:34:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:37:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > So recently I've had two separate issues that touched upon
> > > smp_mb_
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:37:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > So recently I've had two separate issues that touched upon
> > smp_mb__before_spinlock().
> >
> >
> > Since its inception, our understanding of
Hi Peter,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 12:19:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:56:46PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
Hi Peter,
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc5 next-20160825]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, plea
ord what (public, well-known) commit your patch series was
built on]
[Check https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch for more information]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Peter-Zijlstra/Question-on-smp_mb__before_spinlock/20160905-174026
config: i386-randconfig-s1-201636 (attached
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So recently I've had two separate issues that touched upon
> smp_mb__before_spinlock().
>
>
> Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to
> spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:56:46PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> [auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
> [also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc5 next-20160825]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
> help improve the system]
> [Suggest to use g
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So recently I've had two separate issues that touched upon
> smp_mb__before_spinlock().
>
>
> Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to
> spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple
ord what (public, well-known) commit your patch series was
built on]
[Check https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch for more information]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Peter-Zijlstra/Question-on-smp_mb__before_spinlock/20160905-174026
config: x86_64-randconfig-x013-201636 (attac
Hi all,
So recently I've had two separate issues that touched upon
smp_mb__before_spinlock().
Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to
spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple
change, we cannot make it provide more.
The problem with the comm
18 matches
Mail list logo
