Re: [PATCH] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish_wait()and co. imply a memory barrier

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, David Howells wrote:
> > 
> > Well, Ingo's point is it could be left up to the caller of 
> > wake_up() to supply the barrier:

Well, i mainly reacted to your documentation patch which was 
incorrect as it said wake-up implies a _FULL_ memory barrier.

I also suggested that lockless code should have its barriers clearly 
documented and they should not really rely on kernel facilities 
acting as memory barriers.

Then i also suggested that maybe in the future we could remove the 
smp_wmb() from try_to_wake_up(). That was just an afterthought, and 
a rather stupid one at that, as Linus quickly noted :-)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/