Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:23:45 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking
 cycles
Message-ID: <20150218192345.GE5745@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20150217104516.12144.85911.stgit@tkhai>
 <1424170021.5749.22.camel@tkhai>
 <20150217121258.GM5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150217130523.GV24151@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150217160532.GW4166@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150217183636.GR5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150217215231.GK4166@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150218155334.GA26006@redhat.com>
 <20150218161112.GB5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150218163256.GA29123@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150218163256.GA29123@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2191
Lines: 45

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:53:34PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > >       |   mb  |  wmb  |  rmb  |  rbd  |  acq  |  rel  |  ctl  |
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > > >    mb |   Y   |       |   Y   |   y   |   Y   |       |   Y   +
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > > >   wmb |   Y   |       |   Y   |   y   |   Y   |       |   Y   +
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > > >   rmb |       |       |       |       |       |       |       +
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > > >   rbd |       |       |       |       |       |       |       +
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > > >   acq |       |       |       |       |       |       |       +
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > > >   rel |   Y   |       |   Y   |   y   |   Y   |       |   Y   +
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > > >   ctl |       |       |       |       |       |       |       +
> > > >  -----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
> > >
> > > OK, so "acq" can't pair with "acq", and I am not sure I understand.
> >
> > Please consider the table in the context of message passing; that is
> > what Paul proposed. Your example from sysvsems, while interesting, would
> > not fit the general scenario of message passing.
> 
> Ah, yeeees, sorry. Somehow I completely missed that part of Paul's email.
> 
> > This too illustrates a problem with that approach, people can't read, so
> > they'll pick the wrong table to look at.
> 
> At least we know that I certainly can't ;)

Nobody can!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/