On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 02:57:07PM +, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > +==
> > +DISCLAIMER
> > +==
> > +
> > +This document is not a specification; it is intentionally (for the sake of
> > +brevity) and unintentionally (due to being human) incomplete. This
>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:35:46AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:11:43PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So Peter, would you like to update your patch to include yourself
> > and Will as authors?
>
> Sure, here goes.
>
> ---
> Subject:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:04:47AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:29:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:33:40PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > > wrote:
> &
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 02:57:07PM +, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > +==
> > +DISCLAIMER
> > +==
> > +
> > +This document is not a specification; it is intentionally (for the sake of
> > +brevity) and unintentionally (due to being human) incomplete. This
>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:25:46AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:45:23PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > No trailing data-dependent read, so agreed, no smp_read_barrier_depends()
> > needed. That said, I believe that we should encourage r
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:33:40PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > You might as well just write it as
> >
> > struct foo x = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
> > x->bar = 5;
> >
> > because that "smp_read_barrier_depends()" does NOTHING wrt t
; +
> >
> > LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
> >
> > @@ -5,6 +6,22 @@
> > By: David Howells
> > Paul E. McKenney
> >
> > +==
> > +DISCLAIMER
> >
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:52:07AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 07:46:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:19:29PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:44:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > This is distinct from:
>
> That may be distinct, but:
>
> > struct foo *x = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
> > smp_read_barrier_depends();
> > x->bar = 5;
>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:19:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
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:
> > > >
>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 06:02:34PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. Mc
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:19:29PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to implement read_barrier_depends() and
> > smp_read_barrier_depends(), but SYNC_RMB probably does not suffice.
> > The reason for this is th
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Should we start putting litmus tests for the various examples
> > somewhere, perhaps in a litmus-tests directory within each participating
>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to expres
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_r
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release()
> > and smp_read_acquire(),
>
> But they provide different grades o
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:33:40PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 02:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >OK, so it looks like Will was asking not about WRC+addr+addr, but instead
> >about WRC+sync+addr.
> (He actually asked twice about this and that too but skip
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >>On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data dependencies are not required to be
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:45:44PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 01:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:46:43PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> >>On 01/14/2016 12:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:
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
>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:01:05PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> I need some time to understand your test examples. However,
Understood.
> On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >
> >The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data dependencies are not required to be
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:46:43PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 12:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> >>An the only point - please use an appropriate SYNC_* barriers instead of
> >>heavy bold hammer. That stuff was des
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:12:53PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 04:04 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >Consequently, it's important that the architecture back-ends
> >implement these portable primitives (e.g. smp_mb()) in a way that
> >satisfies the kernel memory model so that core code d
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 09:15:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> > An the only point - please use an appropriate SYNC_* barriers instead of
> > heavy bold hammer. That stuff was design explicitly to support the
> > requirements of
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:28:18AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 04:14 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:26:16PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> >
> >> Moreover, there are voices against guarantee that it will be in future
> >>and that voices point me to Docum
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:04:45PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> > On 01/13/2016 12:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:02:35AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> > >
> > >>I ask HW team about it but I have a que
ic/barrier.h instead.
>
> This is in preparation to refactoring this code area.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
Looks sane to me.
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h | 9 ++---
> 1 file c
> Cc: Heiko Carstens
> Cc: Linus Torvalds
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Tony Luck
> Cc: d...@stgolabs.net
> Link:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1445975631-17047-3-git-send-email-d...@stgolabs.net
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Moln
> Instead of reusing the states, let's add new definition inside
> the smpboot.c file with explenation what those states
> mean. Thanks Paul for providing them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner
Apologies for the delay, I didn't realize that you were waiting on me.
R
Commit-ID: 2a442c9c6453d3d043dfd89f2e03a1deff8a6f06
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/2a442c9c6453d3d043dfd89f2e03a1deff8a6f06
Author: Paul E. McKenney
AuthorDate: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:42:15 -0800
Committer: Paul E. McKenney
CommitDate: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:22:35 -0700
x86: Use common
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
This commit removes the open-coded CPU-offline notification with new
common code. Among other things, this change avoids calling scheduler
code using RCU from an offline CPU that RCU is ignoring. It also allows
Xen to notice at online time that the CPU
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:17:59PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 10:25 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> >>The simple solution is to stop calling native_cpu_die() above but
> >>
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 09:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>>On 03/03/2
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > >>
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> }
> >>>@
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > }
> >@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
> > }
> >-cpu_die_common(c
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
This commit removes the open-coded CPU-offline notification with new
common code. Among other things, this change avoids calling scheduler
code using RCU from an offline CPU that RCU is ignoring. It also allows
Xen to notice at online time that the CPU
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:16:57PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> [ Added Paul McKenney ]
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:39:13 +0100
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
>
> > > Why not make this a tracepoint? Then you can enable it only when you
> > > want to. As tracepoints are also hooks, you could ad
47 matches
Mail list logo
