From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:18:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151016151830.GZ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
Hi,
IIRC Paul relies on schedule() implying a full memory barrier with
strong transitivity for RCU.
If not, ignore this email.
If so, however, I suspect AARGH64 is borken and would need (just like
PPC):
#define smp_mb__before_spinlock() smp_mb()
The problem is that schedule() (when a NO-OP) does:
smp_mb__before_spinlock();
LOCK rq->lock
clear_bit()
UNLOCK rq->lock
And nothing there implies a full barrier on AARGH64, since
smp_mb__before_spinlock() defaults to WMB, LOCK is an "ldaxr" or
load-acquire, UNLOCK is "stlrh" or store-release and clear_bit() isn't
anything.
Pretty much every other arch has LOCK implying a full barrier, either
because its strongly ordered or because it needs one for the ACQUIRE
semantics.
next reply other threads:[~2015-10-16 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-16 15:18 Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-10-16 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-16 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-16 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-16 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-16 16:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-16 17:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-16 19:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-16 19:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-19 15:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-16 19:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-19 7:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-19 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-19 15:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-19 16:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-20 8:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-27 16:19 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-27 18:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-28 10:39 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-16 17:11 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151016151830.GZ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome