Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu] classic RCU locking and memory-barrier cleanups

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <mingo@...>, <akpm@...>, <oleg@...>, <manfred@...>, <dipankar@...>, <dvhltc@...>, <niv@...>
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 1:40 pm

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:48:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

Thank you for looking this over, Steve!


Moving the spinlock down below, combined with adding spinlocks elsewhere,
eliminates the need for the memory barrier -- the locking primitives
provide full ordering and atomicity as well.  This does likely reduce
scalability somewhat, which I will address with a hierarchical approach
in a later patch.

							Thanx, Paul

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH tip/core/rcu] classic RCU locking cleanup fix lockdep..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Aug 17, 10:37 am)
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu] classic RCU locking and memory-barr..., Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Aug 15, 10:58 am)
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu] classic RCU locking and memory-barr..., Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Aug 18, 10:04 am)
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu] classic RCU locking and memory-barr..., Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Aug 19, 10:03 am)
Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu] classic RCU locking and memory-barr..., Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Aug 5, 1:40 pm)