Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 6/7] locking: Add ansmp_mb__after_unlock_lock() for UNLOCK+LOCK barrier

[Josh Triplett]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:28:02PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The Linux kernel has traditionally required that an UNLOCK+LOCK pair
> act as a full memory barrier when either (1) that UNLOCK+LOCK pair
> was executed by the same CPU or task, or (2) the same lock variable
> was used for the UNLOCK and LOCK.  It now seems likely that very few
> places in the kernel rely on this full-memory-barrier semantic, and
> with the advent of queued locks, providing this semantic either requires
> complex reasoning, or for some architectures, added overhead.
> 
> This commit therefore adds a smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which may be
> placed after a LOCK primitive to restore the full-memory-barrier semantic.
> All definitions are currently no-ops, but will be upgraded for some
> architectures when queued locks arrive.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linux-Arch <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

It seems quite unfortunate that this isn't in some common location, and
then only overridden by architectures that need to do so.

More importantly: you document this earlier in the patch series than you
introduce it.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/