Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1244673
| From | Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() |
| Date | 2015-10-12 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qiL1w-8hA-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <qgCYr-2Cn-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qiqJr-3Wp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qiztn-86z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qiHhf-2LN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qiJVN-6sh-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:54:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 05:06:36PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > Understood. > > > > But, IMO, the position of this section is already misleading: > > > > (*) Implicit kernel memory barriers. > > - Locking functions. > > - Interrupt disabling functions. > > ->- Sleep and wake-up functions.<- > > - Miscellaneous functions. > > > > I read it as that sleep and wake-up functions provide some kernel memory > > barriers which we can use *externally*(outside sleep/wakeup themselves). > > I think it is useful to state that the primitives handle the ordering > between the waker and wakee wrt the 'blocking' state. > I agree that's useful, however, the 'blocking' state is something internal for sleep and wakeup, right? Not sure whether the users of wake_up() and wait_event() will care much about this or they need to understand that detailedly to use wake_up() and wait_event() correctly. I treat this part of memory-barriers.txt as an API document to describe the implicit barriers in some primitives, which can be used *externally* by someone, but anyway, that's just my own opinion ;-) > But I've not put much thought into wording. I wanted to finish process > order 'comment' patch first. Of course. Actually your 'comment' patch is the reason why I think this section may be removed. Regards, Boqun
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | 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