[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline from atomic context
On 12/12, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 10:54 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > And when I look at get_online_cpus_atomic() again it uses rmb(). This
> > doesn't look correct, we need the full barrier between this_cpu_inc()
> > and writer_active().
> Hmm..
> > At the same time reader_nested_percpu() can be checked before mb().
> I thought that since the increment and the check (reader_nested_percpu)
> act on the same memory location, they will naturally be run in the given
> order, without any need for barriers. Am I wrong?

And this is what I meant, you do not need a barrier before

But you need to ensure that WRITE(reader_percpu_refcnt) and READ(writer_signal)
can't be reordered, so you need mb() in between. rmb() can serialize LOADs and

Or I misunderstood?


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-12 20:01    [W:0.060 / U:1.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site