search for: smp_aquire_barrier_depend

...lpha for being the worst memory ordering ever. > > but I sincerely hope that we'll never find that kind of broken architecture. So for a moment it looked like MIPS wanted to equal or surpass Alpha in this respect. And Paul made the point that smp_read_barrier_depends() really should be smp_aquire_barrier_depends() in that we rely on both dependent reads and writes to be ordered against the initial pointer load. Now, as you've made abundantly clear, Alpha does this, although it needs the little extra help in the dependent read department. The 'problem' is that someone seemed to have used our...

...lpha for being the worst memory ordering ever. > > but I sincerely hope that we'll never find that kind of broken architecture. So for a moment it looked like MIPS wanted to equal or surpass Alpha in this respect. And Paul made the point that smp_read_barrier_depends() really should be smp_aquire_barrier_depends() in that we rely on both dependent reads and writes to be ordered against the initial pointer load. Now, as you've made abundantly clear, Alpha does this, although it needs the little extra help in the dependent read department. The 'problem' is that someone seemed to have used our...

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:44:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> > struct foo *x = READ_ONCE(*ptr); >> > smp_read_barrier_depends(); >> > x->bar = 5; >> >> This case is complete BS. Stop perpetuating it. I already removed

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:44:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> > struct foo *x = READ_ONCE(*ptr); >> > smp_read_barrier_depends(); >> > x->bar = 5; >> >> This case is complete BS. Stop perpetuating it. I already removed