Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764747AbXHQCOj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:14:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757985AbXHQCO1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:14:27 -0400 Received: from rhun.apana.org.au ([64.62.148.172]:4241 "EHLO arnor.apana.org.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082AbXHQCO0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:14:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:13:08 +0800 From: Herbert Xu To: Chris Snook Cc: Stefan Richter , Paul Mackerras , Satyam Sharma , Christoph Lameter , "Paul E. McKenney" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , ak@suse.de, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org, horms@verge.net.au, wjiang@resilience.com, cfriesen@nortel.com, zlynx@acm.org, rpjday@mindspring.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com, segher@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures Message-ID: <20070817021308.GA12938@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <18115.52863.638655.658466@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070816053945.GB32442@gondor.apana.org.au> <18115.62741.807704.969977@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070816070907.GA964@gondor.apana.org.au> <46C40587.7050708@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070816081049.GA1431@gondor.apana.org.au> <46C4AA26.4060707@redhat.com> <20070817000209.GC11594@gondor.apana.org.au> <46C50228.4000004@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46C50228.4000004@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 883 Lines: 22 On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:04:24PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote: > > >Could you please cite the file/function names so we can > >see whether removing the barrier makes sense? > > At a glance, several architectures' implementations of smp_call_function() > have one or more legitimate atomic_read() busy-waits that shouldn't be > using CPU-relax. Some of them do work in the loop. Care to name one so we can discuss it? Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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/