Re: [PATCH] doc: Update wake_up() & co. memory-barrier guarantees
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: 2018-06-26 13:50:01
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
quoted
quoted
-A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they -wake something up. The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so -sits between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING: +A general memory barrier is executed by wake_up() if it wakes something up. +If it doesn't wake anything up then a memory barrier may or may not be +executed; you must not rely on it. The barrier occurs before the task state +is accessed, in part., it sits between the STORE to indicate the event and +the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:Minor suggestion: Instead of "in part.", how about "that is"? (I generally find "in part." to be at least a little confusing, probably because "part" is itself a word and "in part" is a reasonably common phrase in English.)Mmh, the fact is that that "before the task state is accessed" does want to include the LOAD from ->state to check for the task state (recall the pattern in [1])...; how about if I expand "in part." to "in particular"?
That would be acceptable. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html