Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1224066
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants |
| Date | 2015-09-14 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q8ATL-5V5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <q41Bg-21v-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <q4cZI-1tV-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <q7vW9-1Oz-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <q8Ah4-4WS-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <q8AK7-5JN-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:01:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > The scenario is: > > CPU0 CPU1 > > unlock(x) > smp_store_release(&x->lock, 0); > > unlock(y) > smp_store_release(&next->lock, 1); /* next == &y */ > > lock(y) > while (!(smp_load_acquire(&y->lock)) > cpu_relax(); > > > Where the lock does _NOT_ issue a store to acquire the lock at all. Now > I don't think any of our current primitives manage this, so we should be > good, but it might just be possible. So with a bit more through this seems fundamentally impossible, you always needs some stores in a lock() implementation, the above for instance needs to queue itself, otherwise CPU0 will not be able to find it etc.. -- 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
Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-09-11 14:50 +0200
Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-09-11 19:20 +0200
Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-14 13:40 +0200
Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-14 14:10 +0200
Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-14 14:20 +0200
Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-09-14 17:40 +0200
Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-09-14 18:50 +0200
csiph-web