Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1559183
| From | "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering |
| Date | 2017-01-15 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sZPiq-OV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <sZJZn-60P-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <sZJZn-60P-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <sZNgB-880-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sZNJD-8gy-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sZNTj-8jR-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 08:57:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 08:11:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > index 357b32aaea48..5fdfe874229e 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > @@ -1175,11 +1175,11 @@ do { \
> > > > * if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
> > > > * UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable.
> > > > */
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELACQ
> > > > #define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() smp_mb() /* Full ordering for lock. */
> > > > -#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
> > > > +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELACQ */
> > > > #define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
> > > > -#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
> > > > +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELACQ */
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > So at the risk of sounding totally pedantic, why not structure it like the
> > > existing smp_mb__before/after*() primitives in barrier.h?
> > >
> > > That allows asm-generic/barrier.h to pick up the definition - for example in the
> > > case of smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() we do:
> > >
> > > #ifndef smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep
> > > #define smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() smp_rmb()
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > Which allows Tile to relax it:
> > >
> > > arch/tile/include/asm/barrier.h:#define smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() barrier()
> > >
> > > I.e. I'd move the API definition out of rcupdate.h and into barrier.h - even
> > > though tree-RCU is the only user of this barrier type.
> >
> > I wouldn't have any problem with that, however, some time back it was
> > moved into RCU because (you guessed it!) RCU is the only user. ;-)
>
> Indeed ...
>
> [sounds of rummaging around in the Git tree]
>
> I found this commit of yours from ancient history (more than a year ago!):
>
> commit 12d560f4ea87030667438a169912380be00cea4b
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Tue Jul 14 18:35:23 2015 -0700
>
> rcu,locking: Privatize smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
>
> RCU is the only thing that uses smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), and is
> likely the only thing that ever will use it, so this commit makes this
> macro private to RCU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
>
> So I concur and I'm fine with your patch - or with the status quo code as well.
I already have the patch queued, so how about I keep it if I get an ack
from the powerpc guys and drop it otherwise?
Thanx, Paul
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-14 10:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-01-14 10:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-15 04:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-15 04:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-01-15 08:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-15 08:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-01-15 09:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-15 10:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-01-15 10:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-15 20:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-01-16 08:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-01-15 08:00 +0100
csiph-web