Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751546AbaJRUuV (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:50:21 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:48478 "EHLO mail-vc0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751483AbaJRUuU (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:50:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1413662314.17869.11.camel@linux-t7sj.site> References: <1413563929-2664-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <1413617580.29249.9.camel@linux-t7sj.site> <1413662314.17869.11.camel@linux-t7sj.site> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:50:18 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bi1Pl_NgiuCt7_tPFSnocvmIGk8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Ensure get_futex_key_refs() always implies a barrier From: Linus Torvalds To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Catalin Marinas , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Matteo Franchin , Darren Hart , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "Paul E. McKenney" , Mike Galbraith Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes. > The following patch had some very minor testing on a 60 core box last > night, but passes both Darren's and perf's tests. So I *think* this is > right, but lack of sleep and I overall just don't trust them futexes! Hmm. I don't see the advantage of making the code more complex in order to avoid the functions that are no-ops for the !fshared case? IOW, as far as I can tell, this patch doesn't actually really *change* anything. Am I missing something? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/