Re: [PATCH] pi-futex: set PF_EXITING without taking ->pi_lock

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:

> 	static inline void ccids_read_lock(void)
> 	{
> 		atomic_inc(&ccids_lockct);
> 		spin_unlock_wait(&ccids_lock);
> 	}
> 
> This looks racy, in theory atomic_inc() and spin_unlock_wait() could 
> be re-ordered. However, in this particular case we have an "optimized" 
> smp_mb_after_atomic_inc(), perhaps it is good that the caller can 
> choose the "right" barrier by hand.

_all_ default locking and atomic APIs should be barrier-safe i believe. 
(and that includes atomic_inc() too) Most people dont have barriers on 
their mind when their code. _If_ someone is barrier-conscious then we 
should have barrier-less APIs too for that purpose of squeezing the last 
half cycle out of the code, but it should be a non-default choice. The 
reason: nobody notices an unnecessary barrier, but a missing barrier can 
be nasty.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/