Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1240628
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() |
| Date | 2015-10-06 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qgCYr-2Cn-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <q6Tea-3WQ-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6ZCW-4Mz-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <q7eiC-eo-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <q9H6P-4rU-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qceL0-4jO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:21:22PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > Included in it are some of the details on this subject, because a wakeup > > has two prior states that are of importance, the tasks own prior state > > and the wakeup state, both should be considered in the 'program order' > > flow. > > > > Great and very helpful ;-) > > > So maybe we can reduce the description in memory-barriers to this > > 'split' program order guarantee, where a woken task must observe both > > its own prior state and its wakee state. > ^^^^^ > I think you mean "waker" here, right? Yes. > And the waker is not necessarily the same task who set the @cond to > true, right? It should be. > If so, I feel like it's really hard to *use* this 'split' > program order guarantee in other places than sleep/wakeup itself. Could > you give an example? Thank you. It was not meant to be used in any other scenario; the 'split' PO really is part of the whole sleep/wakeup. It does not apply to anything else. -- 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 — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-06 18:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-10-12 02:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 11:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-12 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-12 18:30 +0200
csiph-web