lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 5/7] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Downgrade UNLOCK+LOCK
On 12/10, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:44:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Well, but smp_mb__before_spinlock + LOCK is not wmb... But it is not
> > the full barrier. It should guarantee that, say,
> >
> > CONDITION = true; // 1
> >
> > // try_to_wake_up
> > smp_mb__before_spinlock();
> > spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
> >
> > if (!(p->state & state)) // 2
> > return;
> >
> > can't race with with set_current_state() + check(CONDITION), this means
> > that 1 and 2 above must not be reordered.
> >
> > But a LOAD before before spin_lock() can leak into the critical section.
> >
> > Perhaps this should be clarified somehow, or perhaps it should actually
> > imply mb (if combined with LOCK).
>
> If we leave the implementation the same, does the following capture the
> constraints?
>
> Memory operations issued before the LOCK may be completed after
> the LOCK operation has completed. An smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
> combined with a following LOCK, orders prior loads against
> subsequent stores

prior stores against subsequent loads ;)

Otherwise - thanks!

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-10 19:01    [W:0.055 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site