Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1250394
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 |
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qlcJX-5we-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qkeXw-1Ha-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qkfJV-2V2-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qkfTz-36s-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qkgwi-3Qz-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qkiy7-70o-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > In any case, its all moot now, since Paul no longer requires schedule() to imply > a full barrier. > > [...] Nevertheless from a least-surprise POV it might be worth guaranteeing it, because I bet there's tons of code that assumes that schedule() is a heavy operation and it's such an easy mistake to make. Since we are so close to having that guarantee, we might as well codify it? Just like system calls are assumed to be barriers in general - and system calls are more lightweight than schedule() ... Thanks, Ingo -- 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
Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-16 17:20 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-10-16 18:10 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-16 18:20 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-10-16 18:40 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-16 18:40 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2015-10-16 19:00 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-10-16 19:30 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-16 21:10 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-10-16 21:30 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2015-10-19 17:20 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-16 21:10 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-10-19 09:10 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-19 11:10 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2015-10-19 17:30 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-19 18:30 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-10-20 10:40 +0200
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-10-27 17:30 +0100
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-28 01:20 +0100
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-10-28 11:50 +0100
Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2015-10-16 19:20 +0200
csiph-web