Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1250485
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64 |
| Date | 2015-10-19 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qleC7-8fX-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <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> <qlcJX-5we-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:06:05AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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 - Are they? I know they are on some platforms, but I'm not sure we've audited them all and established this. > and system calls are more lightweight than schedule() ... Hopefully, although if you enable nohz_full there's a fair chance to reverse that :-) -- 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