Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memorybarrier (v3b)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:38 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> > The UP-kernel case is handled by the #ifdef in sys_membarrier(), though
> > with a bit larger code footprint than the embedded guys would probably
> > prefer.  (Or is the compiler smart enough to omit these function given no
> > calls to them?  If not, recommend putting them under CONFIG_SMP #ifdef.)
> 
> Hrm, that's a bit odd. I agree that UP systems could simply return
> -ENOSYS for sys_membarrier, but then I wonder how userland could
> distinguish between:
> 
> - an old kernel not supporting sys_membarrier()
>   -> in this case we need to use the smp_mb() fallback on the read-side
>      and in synchronize_rcu().
> - a recent kernel supporting sys_membarrier(), CONFIG_SMP
>   -> can use the barrier() on read-side, call sys_membarrier upon
>      update.
> - a recent kernel supporting sys_membarrier, !CONFIG_SMP
>   -> calls to sys_membarrier() are not required, nor is barrier().
> 
> Or maybe we just postpone the userland smp_mb() question to another
> thread. This will eventually need to be addressed anyway. Maybe with a
> vgetmaxcpu() vsyscall.

I think Paul means to wrap all your other functions under the #ifdef.
What you have for sys_membarrier() is fine (just return 0 on UP) but you
also need to wrap the helper function above it under #ifdef CONFIG_SMP.
Don't rely on the compiler to optimize them out. If anything, you'll
probably get a bunch of warnings about static functions unused.

-- Steve


--
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/