Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queuespinlock implementation

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:05:29 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 08:59:57AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:19:37 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> > Spin locks only prevent leaks out of the critical section. It does not
> > guarantee leaks into the critical section, thus:
> 
> What's your point? You're just re-iterating the semantics in case
> anybody forgot about them?


I think we are all misunderstanding each other. It sounded like you
didn't want to reimplement a lock to remove memory barriers.

Are you for the smp_mb__after_spin_unlock() ?

I'm getting confused by who is arguing what :-)

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/