Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:21:13 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/27] rcu: Add comment documenting how rcu_seq_snap works |
| |
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:08:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:14:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:35:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > > > > > rcu_seq_snap may be tricky to decipher. Lets document how it works with > > > an example to make it easier. > > > > Since you had me looking at them functions; why isn't rcu_seq_snap() > > using smp_load_acquire() and rcu_seq_end() using smp_store_release() ? > > Their respective comments seem to suggest that would be sufficent. > > I do not believe that this would suffice. Would it make sense to refer > to Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering in the comment header?
No, because I can't read that thing in an editor.
> Except that this would invite sprinkling this pathname far and wide... > > The key point is that these functions are part of the any-to-any > memory-ordering guarantee that RCU grace periods provide.
Then the existing comment is misleading and really needs change.
| |