On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Davidlohr Bueso | 2016-07-20 17:16:12 [-0700]:
Just as with expunge_all and the E2BIG case, could you remove that explicit
barrier (B) and just rely on wake_q_add?
Just did. So we have just a smp_rmb() on the reader side and the
comment
* Davidlohr Bueso | 2016-07-20 17:16:12 [-0700]:
>Just as with expunge_all and the E2BIG case, could you remove that explicit
>barrier (B) and just rely on wake_q_add?
Just did. So we have just a smp_rmb() on the reader side and the
comment talks about smb_wmb() and at the spot where we should ha
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
This patch moves the wakeup_process() invocation so it is not done under
the perm->lock by making use of a lockless wake_q. With this change, the
waiter is woken up once the message has been assigned and it does not
need to loop on SMP if the
This patch moves the wakeup_process() invocation so it is not done under
the perm->lock by making use of a lockless wake_q. With this change, the
waiter is woken up once the message has been assigned and it does not
need to loop on SMP if the message points to NULL. In the signal case we
still need
4 matches
Mail list logo