Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1215642
| From | Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints |
| Date | 2015-08-29 03:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q2DhD-3Tb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <q1NsK-55Y-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 20:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Of course, if anything else prior to futex_atomic_op_inuser() implies an
> (RCsc) RELEASE or stronger the primitive can do without providing
> anything itself.
>
> This turns out to be the case, a successful get_futex_key() implies a
> full memory barrier; recent: 1d0dcb3ad9d3 ("futex: Implement lockless
> wakeups").
Hmm while it is certainly true that get_futex_key() implies a full
barrier, I don't see why you're referring to the recent wake_q stuff;
where the futex "wakeup" is done much after futex_atomic_op_inuser. Yes,
that too implies a barrier, but not wrt get_futex_key() -- which
fundamentally relies on get_futex_key_refs().
>
> And since get_futex_key() is fundamental to doing _anything_ with a
> futex, I think its semi-sane to rely on this.
Right, and it wouldn't be the first thing that relies on get_futex_key()
implying a full barrier.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
futex atomic vs ordering constraints Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-26 20:20 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2015-08-29 03:40 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-01 18:40 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-09-01 18:40 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-01 18:50 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-09-01 18:50 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-09-01 21:10 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-02 15:00 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> - 2015-09-02 18:20 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-02 19:10 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> - 2015-09-02 19:30 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-02 23:20 +0200
Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-05 20:00 +0200
csiph-web