From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754294Ab1BACv3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:51:29 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52845 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789Ab1BACv2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:51:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110201021831.GB2158@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20110112150740.77dde58c@kryten> <1295288253.30950.280.camel@laptop> <1296145360.15234.234.camel@laptop> <1296508677.26581.84.camel@laptop> <1296519764.2349.325.camel@pasglop> <20110201021831.GB2158@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:43:56 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: call_function_many: fix list delete vs add race To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Peter Zijlstra , Milton Miller , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Anton Blanchard , xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu, jaxboe@fusionio.com, npiggin@gmail.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt specifies this. Good, so it really is documented, with both cases explicitly mentioned. That said, I do think that if your memory ordering is much weaker than x86, you are going to see bugs that most testers don't see, and it simply might not be worth it. Linus