On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:04:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:25:37PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Documenting it would definitely be good, but even then I'd be inclined > > to leave the barrier in our implementation. Matching the documented > > behaviour is one thing, but the actual real-world behaviour on well > > tested platforms (ie. x86) is more important. > > By that argument you should switch your spinlock implementation to RCpc > and include that SYNC in either lock or unlock already ;-)
*RCsc* obviously... clearly I need to wake up moar. > Ideally we'd completely eradicate the *_is_locked() crud from the > kernel, not sure how feasable that really is, but it's a good goal. At > that point the whole issue of the barrier becomes moot of course.
