Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753909Ab0BVSi6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:38:58 -0500 Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com ([47.140.192.56]:41186 "EHLO zrtps0kp.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753400Ab0BVSi4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:38:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4B82CF1A.3010501@nortel.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:38:18 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mathieu Desnoyers CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Nicholas Miell , Linus Torvalds , mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC patch] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v9) References: <20100212224606.GA30280@Krystal> In-Reply-To: <20100212224606.GA30280@Krystal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2010 18:38:45.0364 (UTC) FILETIME=[43BEB340:01CAB3EE] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1081 Lines: 24 On 02/12/2010 04:46 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Editorial question: > > This synchronization only takes care of threads using the current process memory > map. It should not be used to synchronize accesses performed on memory maps > shared between different processes. Is that a limitation we can live with ? It makes sense for an initial version. It would be unfortunate if this were a permanent limitation, since using separate processes with explicit shared memory is a useful way to mitigate memory trampler issues. If we were going to allow that, it might make sense to add an address range such that only those processes which have mapped that range would execute the barrier. Come to think of it, it might be possible to use this somehow to avoid having to execute the barrier on *all* threads within a process. Chris -- 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/