On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:59:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
[...]
> > +static inline void __cmpwait(volatile void *ptr, unsigned long val, int
> > size)
> > +{
> > + switch (size) {
> > + case 1: return __cmpwait_case_1(ptr, val);
> > + case 2: return __cmpwait_case_2(ptr, val);
> > + case 4: return __cmpwait_case_4(ptr, val);
> > + case 8: return __cmpwait_case_8(ptr, val);
> > + default: BUILD_BUG();
> > + }
> > +
> > + unreachable();
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define cmpwait(ptr, val) \
> > + __cmpwait((ptr), (unsigned long)(val), sizeof(*(ptr)))
>
> We might want to call this cmpwait_relaxed, in case we decide to add
> fenced versions in the future. Or just make it cmpwait_acquire and
> remove the smp_rmb() from smp_cond_load_acquire(). Dunno.
> How about replace smp_rmb() with a smp_acquire_barrier__after_cmpwait()? This barrier is designed to provide an ACQUIRE ordering when combining a cmpwait() . And cmpwait() only has minimal ordering guarantee, but if it is actually an ACQUIRE, then the corresponding smp_acquire_barrier__after_cmpwait() is just empty. We might need this special barrier on ppc, because we can implement it with "isync" given that cmpwait() has control dependency and ctrl+isync is ACQUIRE on ppc. Thoughts? Regards, Boqun > Will
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
