Searched hist:d89e588c (Results 1 - 5 of 5) sorted by relevance
| /linux-master/arch/arm64/include/asm/ | ||
| H A D | spinlock.h | diff d89e588c Mon Sep 05 03:37:53 MDT 2016 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> locking: Introduce smp_mb__after_spinlock() Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple change, we cannot make it provide more. The problem with the comment is that the STORE done by spin_lock isn't itself ordered by the ACQUIRE, and therefore a later LOAD can pass over it and cross with any prior STORE, rendering the default WMB insufficient (pointed out by Alan). Now, this is only really a problem on PowerPC and ARM64, both of which already defined smp_mb__before_spinlock() as a smp_mb(). At the same time, we can get a much stronger construct if we place that same barrier _inside_ the spin_lock(). In that case we upgrade the RCpc spinlock to an RCsc. That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one another. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
| /linux-master/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ | ||
| H A D | spinlock.h | diff d89e588c Mon Sep 05 03:37:53 MDT 2016 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> locking: Introduce smp_mb__after_spinlock() Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple change, we cannot make it provide more. The problem with the comment is that the STORE done by spin_lock isn't itself ordered by the ACQUIRE, and therefore a later LOAD can pass over it and cross with any prior STORE, rendering the default WMB insufficient (pointed out by Alan). Now, this is only really a problem on PowerPC and ARM64, both of which already defined smp_mb__before_spinlock() as a smp_mb(). At the same time, we can get a much stronger construct if we place that same barrier _inside_ the spin_lock(). In that case we upgrade the RCpc spinlock to an RCsc. That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one another. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
| /linux-master/include/linux/ | ||
| H A D | atomic.h | diff d89e588c Mon Sep 05 03:37:53 MDT 2016 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> locking: Introduce smp_mb__after_spinlock() Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple change, we cannot make it provide more. The problem with the comment is that the STORE done by spin_lock isn't itself ordered by the ACQUIRE, and therefore a later LOAD can pass over it and cross with any prior STORE, rendering the default WMB insufficient (pointed out by Alan). Now, this is only really a problem on PowerPC and ARM64, both of which already defined smp_mb__before_spinlock() as a smp_mb(). At the same time, we can get a much stronger construct if we place that same barrier _inside_ the spin_lock(). In that case we upgrade the RCpc spinlock to an RCsc. That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one another. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
| H A D | spinlock.h | diff d89e588c Mon Sep 05 03:37:53 MDT 2016 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> locking: Introduce smp_mb__after_spinlock() Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple change, we cannot make it provide more. The problem with the comment is that the STORE done by spin_lock isn't itself ordered by the ACQUIRE, and therefore a later LOAD can pass over it and cross with any prior STORE, rendering the default WMB insufficient (pointed out by Alan). Now, this is only really a problem on PowerPC and ARM64, both of which already defined smp_mb__before_spinlock() as a smp_mb(). At the same time, we can get a much stronger construct if we place that same barrier _inside_ the spin_lock(). In that case we upgrade the RCpc spinlock to an RCsc. That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one another. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
| /linux-master/kernel/sched/ | ||
| H A D | core.c | diff d89e588c Mon Sep 05 03:37:53 MDT 2016 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> locking: Introduce smp_mb__after_spinlock() Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple change, we cannot make it provide more. The problem with the comment is that the STORE done by spin_lock isn't itself ordered by the ACQUIRE, and therefore a later LOAD can pass over it and cross with any prior STORE, rendering the default WMB insufficient (pointed out by Alan). Now, this is only really a problem on PowerPC and ARM64, both of which already defined smp_mb__before_spinlock() as a smp_mb(). At the same time, we can get a much stronger construct if we place that same barrier _inside_ the spin_lock(). In that case we upgrade the RCpc spinlock to an RCsc. That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one another. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
Completed in 803 milliseconds