lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH printk v1 01/13] printk: rename cpulock functions
On Fri 2022-02-11 22:04:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 03:57:27PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:48:08 +0106
> > John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > It is because (as in the example above), taking this "lock" does not
> > > provide synchronization to data. It is only synchronizing between
> > > CPUs. It was Steven's suggestion to call the thing a cpu_sync object and
> > > nobody in the RT Track seemed to disagree.
> >
> > I love causing trouble ;-)
> >
> > Actually, it wasn't just my suggestion. IIRC, I believe Peter Zijlstra was
> > against calling it a lock (Peter, you can use lore to see the context here).
>
> All I remember is that it was in a room and I was late, I can't even
> remember what City we were all in at the time. Was this Lisbon?
>
> Anyway, as Steve said, it isn't really a strict exclusion thing, it only
> avoids the most egregious inter-cpu interleaving. I'm down with
> goldi-locks, something has to have that name :-)

You troublemakers :-)

OK, I know, I am the troublemaker here.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-15 10:32    [W:1.194 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site