lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/9] firewire: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK
On 02/21/2014 11:57 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yo,
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:53:46AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> Ok, I can do that. But AFAIK it'll have to be an smp_rmb(); there is
>> no mb__after unlock.
>
> We do have smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
>
>> [ After thinking about it some, I don't think preventing speculative
>> writes before clearing PENDING if useful or necessary, so that's
>> why I'm suggesting only the rmb. ]
>
> But smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() would be cheaper on most popular
> archs, I think.

smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is only for ordering memory operations
between two spin-locked sections on either the same lock or by
the same task/cpu. Like:

i = 1
spin_unlock(lock1)
spin_lock(lock2)
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
j = 1

This guarantees that the store to j happens after the store to i.
Without it, a cpu can

spin_lock(lock2)
j = 1
i = 1
spin_unlock(lock1)

Regards,
Peter Hurley


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-22 00:41    [W:0.124 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site