Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "dpendendency".
2017 Dec 05
3
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
...the tools to analyze than is smp_wmb(). My experience with
> > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > that they are correct.
>
> OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
the new improved READ_ONCE()?
Thanx, Paul
2017 Dec 05
3
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
...the tools to analyze than is smp_wmb(). My experience with
> > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > that they are correct.
>
> OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
the new improved READ_ONCE()?
Thanx, Paul
2017 Dec 05
3
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
...ience with
> > > > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > > > that they are correct.
> > >
> > > OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> > > rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
> >
> > Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
> > the new improved READ_ONCE()?
>
> READ_ONCE is really all over the place (some code literally replaced all
> memory accesses with READ/WRITE ONCE).
>
> And I also prefer...
2017 Dec 05
3
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
...ience with
> > > > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > > > that they are correct.
> > >
> > > OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> > > rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
> >
> > Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
> > the new improved READ_ONCE()?
>
> READ_ONCE is really all over the place (some code literally replaced all
> memory accesses with READ/WRITE ONCE).
>
> And I also prefer...
2017 Dec 05
3
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:17:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:57:46PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see WRITE_ONCE inserting any barriers, release or
> > > write.
> >
> > Correct, never claimed there was.
> >
> >
2017 Dec 05
3
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:17:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:57:46PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see WRITE_ONCE inserting any barriers, release or
> > > write.
> >
> > Correct, never claimed there was.
> >
> >
2017 Dec 05
0
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
...tools to analyze than is smp_wmb(). My experience with
> smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> that they are correct.
>
> Thanx, Paul
OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
--
MST
2017 Dec 05
0
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
...n is smp_wmb(). My experience with
> > > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > > that they are correct.
> >
> > OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> > rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
>
> Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
> the new improved READ_ONCE()?
>
> Thanx, Paul
READ_ONCE is really all over the place (some code literally replaced all
memory accesses with READ/WRITE ONCE).
And I also prefer smp_wmb as...
2017 Dec 05
0
[PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier_depends()
...> > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > > > > that they are correct.
> > > >
> > > > OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> > > > rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
> > >
> > > Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
> > > the new improved READ_ONCE()?
> >
> > READ_ONCE is really all over the place (some code literally replaced all
> > memory accesses with READ/WRITE ONCE)....