On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:21:11PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Yes, exactly that. Would an unadorned 2 be clearer?
>
> How about "the one issueing the ACQUIRE (smp_cond_acquire)"?
Sure, that works. Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:18:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:08:50PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:02:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > + * BLOCKING -- aka. SLEEP + WAKEUP
> > > + *
> > > + * For blocking
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:08:50PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:02:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [snip]
> > + * BLOCKING -- aka. SLEEP + WAKEUP
> > + *
> > + * For blocking we (obviously) need to provide the same guarantee as for
> > + * migration. How
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:02:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
> + * BLOCKING -- aka. SLEEP + WAKEUP
> + *
> + * For blocking we (obviously) need to provide the same guarantee as for
> + * migration. However the means are completely different as there is no lock
> + * chain to p
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:27:05PM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> I suspect this part might be more explicitly expressed by specifying
> the requirements that migration satisfies; then providing an example.
> This makes it easier for others to reason about the locks and saves
> worrying about whether
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:09:20PM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> If we went this route, we could do something like:
>
> + * So in this case the scheduler does not provide an obvious full barrier;
> but
> + * the smp_store_release() in finish_lock_switch(), paired with the
> control-dep
> + * and s
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:27:05PM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
>> I suspect this part might be more explicitly expressed by specifying
>> the requirements that migration satisfies; then providing an example.
>> This makes it easier for others
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:27:05PM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> I suspect this part might be more explicitly expressed by specifying
> the requirements that migration satisfies; then providing an example.
> This makes it easier for others to reason about the locks and saves
> worrying about whether
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> These are some notes on the scheduler locking and how it provides
> program order guarantees on SMP systems.
>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds
> Cc: Will Deacon
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov
> Cc: Boqun Feng
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney"
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet
>
These are some notes on the scheduler locking and how it provides
program order guarantees on SMP systems.
Cc: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Will Deacon
Cc: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Boqun Feng
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney"
Cc: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Michal Hocko
Cc: David Howells
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
10 matches
Mail list logo
