On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:43:55PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi Boqun,
>
> On 08/12/2016 04:47 AM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > We should not be doing an smp_mb() right after a spin_lock(), makes no
> > > sense. The
> > > spinlock machinery should guarantee us the barriers in the unorthodox
> >
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:59:46AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> But if an arch implements its spin_lock() with a full barrier, even
> though the atomic is implemented by ll/sc, the STORE part of which can't
> be reordered with memory operations in the critcal sections. I think
> maybe that's the case
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:06:39PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 08/10/2016 11:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >>[...]
> >> CPU0 CPU1
> >> complex_mode = truespin_lock(l)
Hi Paul,
On 08/10/2016 11:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
[...]
CPU0 CPU1
complex_mode = truespin_lock(l)
smp_mb() <--- do we want a smp_mb() here?
spin_unlock
Hi Boqun,
On 08/12/2016 04:47 AM, Boqun Feng wrote:
We should not be doing an smp_mb() right after a spin_lock(), makes no sense.
The
spinlock machinery should guarantee us the barriers in the unorthodox locking
cases,
such as this.
Do we really want to go there?
Trying to handle all unortho
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:31:06AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 04:29:22PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > > (1) As Manfred suggested, have a patch 1 that fixes the race against
> > > mainline
> > > with the redund
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> > On 08/10/2016 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > > > Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
> > > >
> > > > regarding commi
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 04:29:22PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
(1) As Manfred suggested, have a patch 1 that fixes the race against mainline
with the redundant smp_rmb, then apply a second patch that gets rid of it
for mainline, but only backport th
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 04:29:22PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> (1) As Manfred suggested, have a patch 1 that fixes the race against mainline
> with the redundant smp_rmb, then apply a second patch that gets rid of it
> for mainline, but only backport the original patch 1 down to 3.12.
I have
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 15:23 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:21:22PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> 4)
> > > spin_unlock_wait() and spin_unlock() pair
> >
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:23:16PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:21:22PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>> 4)
>>spin
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:23:16PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:21:22PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> >> 4)
> >>spin_unlock_wait() and spin_unlock() pair
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:21:22PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
4)
spin_unlock_wait() and spin_unlock() pair
http://git.cmpxchg.org/cgit.cgi/linux-mmots.git/tree/ipc/sem.c#n291
http://gi
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> >On 08/10/2016 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >>>Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
> >>>
> >>>regarding commit 51d7d5205d
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:21:22PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [adding Peter, correcting Davidlohr's mail address]
>
> On 08/10/2016 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >>Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
> >>
> >>regarding commi
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:05:37AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
> >
> > regarding commit 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to
> > arch_spin_is_locked()"):
> >
> > For the ipc/sem code, I would like
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
On 08/10/2016 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
regarding commit 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to
arch_spin_is_locked()"):
For the ipc/sem code, I would l
Hi,
[adding Peter, correcting Davidlohr's mail address]
On 08/10/2016 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
regarding commit 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to
arch_spin_is_locked()"):
For the ipc/sem co
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
>
> regarding commit 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to
> arch_spin_is_locked()"):
>
> For the ipc/sem code, I would like to replace the spin_is_locked() with
> a smp_load_acquire(), see:
>
> http://git.cm
Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
regarding commit 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to
arch_spin_is_locked()"):
For the ipc/sem code, I would like to replace the spin_is_locked() with
a smp_load_acquire(), see:
http://git.cmpxchg.org/cgit.cgi/linux-mmots.git/tree/ipc/sem.c#n367
http://www.ozlab
20 matches
Mail list logo
