Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] barriers: convert a control to a data dependency

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 11:23:07PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:58:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/1/3

Re: [PATCH 1/2] locking/xchg/alpha: Use smp_mb() in place of __ASM__MB

me such. Regardless... Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> > Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky <i...@jurassic.park.m

Re: [PATCH] xchg/alpha: Add unconditional memory barrier to cmpxchg

//marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=151215810824468=2 > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=151215816324484=2 > > [2] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=151881978314872=2 > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > C

[tip:core/rcu] drivers/infiniband: Remove now-redundant smp_read_barrier_depends()

Commit-ID: adf90eb49055636fc35aede54174456ac3520f27 Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/adf90eb49055636fc35aede54174456ac3520f27 Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> AuthorDate: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:04:22 -0800 Committer: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vne

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/21] drivers/infiniband: Remove now-redundant smp_read_barrier_depends()

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:08:32AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > commit c389c98ec5f4a7aa4c36853e89801eb5ea81870e > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Date: Mon Nov 27 09:04:22 2017 -0800 > > > > drivers/infiniband: Remove no

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/21] drivers/infiniband: Remove now-redundant smp_read_barrier_depends()

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:11:09PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:51:11AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > The smp_read_barrier_depends() does nothing at all except on DEC Alpha, > > and no current DEC Alpha systems use Infiniband: > > >

Re: Do any Alpha systems include InfiniBand?

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 06:16:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:13:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:59:21PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >

Re: Do any Alpha systems include InfiniBand?

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:59:21PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Do any of the DEC Alpha systems that run recent kernels have InfiniBand? > > Given my understanding of the history, I believe the answer to be

Re: Do any Alpha systems include InfiniBand?

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 01:00:14PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hello, Michael, > > > > Do any of the DEC Alpha systems that run recent kernels have InfiniBand? > > Give

Do any Alpha systems include InfiniBand?

Hello, Michael, Do any of the DEC Alpha systems that run recent kernels have InfiniBand? Given my understanding of the history, I believe the answer to be "no". If I am wrong, please let me know, as I will otherwise interpret silence as assent. ;-)

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: Use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE when accessing page tables

Oct 03, 2017 at 12:11:10PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:33:49PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:29:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:08:43AM +0100, Will Deacon

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: Use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE when accessing page tables

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:08:43AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 05:58:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 07:59:09AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:43:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: Use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE when accessing page tables

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:49:54PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:43:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 09:45:35AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:38:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > &

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: Use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE when accessing page tables

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 09:45:35AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:38:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:49:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > In many cases, page tables can be accessed concurrently by either another > > > CPU (due to things

[PATCH RFC 09/26] alpha: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions

There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific arch_spin_unlock_wait(). Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com&

Re: [RFC 10/12] x86, rwsem: simplify __down_write

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 07:36:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 03:40:58PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Blergh; so looking at more asm there's still a few tricks we cannot do. > > > So while overall size is down,