Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2016-06-15 18:40:27
Also in:
linux-alpha, linux-s390, lkml
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2016-06-15 18:40:27
Also in:
linux-alpha, linux-s390, lkml
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:27:24AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:quoted
In any case, its fairly simple to cure, just add smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() at the end. If we bail because need_resched() we don't need the acquire I think.I was just considering this for your smp_cond_acquire/smp_cond_load_acquire
Right, so that need_resched break makes that a bit awkward. Not to mention the cpu_relaxed() vs cpu_relaxed_lowlatency() difference.
rework, so yeah I guess an smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep would be a nice compromise. However, I was always under the impression that races with node->locked were rather harmless (as indicated in the mentioned commit) -- which is why ->locked are simple load/stores, with the exception of the unqueueing -- but yeah, that's not even paired.
Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a variables with the osq_lock.