Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1222335
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() |
| Date | 2015-09-10 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q7eiC-eo-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <q6fJL-5Z2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6Tea-3WQ-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6ZCW-4Mz-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 09/10, Boqun Feng wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > My feeling is > > that we should avoid saying too much about the internals of wait_event() > > and wake_up(). I feel the same. I simply can't understand what we are trying to document ;) For example, > A STORE-LOAD barrier is implied after setting task state by wait-related functions: > > prepare_to_wait(); > prepare_to_wait_exclusive(); > prepare_to_wait_event(); I won't argue, but to me this looks misleading too. Yes, prepare_to_wait()->set_current_state() implies mb() and thus a STORE-LOAD barrier. But this has nothing to do with the explanation above. We do not need this barrier to avoid the race with wake_up(). Again, again, we can safely rely on wq->lock and acquire/release semantics. This barrier is only needed if you do, say, CONDITION = 1; if (waitqueue_active(wq)) wake_up(wq); And note that the code above is wrong without another mb() after CONDITION = 1. Oleg. -- 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
[PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 03:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-09-09 21:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 04:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-10 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-17 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-17 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-18 09:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the barriers in wake_*() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-21 19:50 +0200
csiph-web