Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 23:16:21 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, neel@FreeBSD.org, Peter Grehan <grehan@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: proposed smp_rendezvous change Message-ID: <4DD2D795.6020106@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201105171151.18038.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4DCD357D.6000109@FreeBSD.org> <201105170958.16847.jhb@freebsd.org> <4DD28781.6050002@FreeBSD.org> <201105171151.18038.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 17/05/2011 18:51 John Baldwin said the following: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:34:41 am Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 17/05/2011 16:58 John Baldwin said the following: >>> No, it doesn't quite work that way. It wouldn't work on Alpha for example. >>> >>> All load_acq is a load with a memory barrier to order other loads after it. >>> It is still free to load stale data. Only a read-modify-write operation >>> would actually block until it could access an up-to-date value. >> >> Hmm, ok. >> How about atomic_add_acq_int(&smp_rv_waiters[0], 0) ? :-) >> Or an equivalent MI action that doesn't actually change smp_rv_waiters[0] value, >> if there could be any. >> Maybe explicit atomic_cmpset_acq_int(&smp_rv_waiters[0], 0, 0) ? >> >> You see at what I am getting? > > Yeah, either of those would work. At this point just leaving the > atomic_add_int() as-is would be the smallest diff. :) Yes, I agree about the smallest diff. But if we are going to remove that first spin-loop, then we would effectively be wasting one volatile variable. Only a tiny waste, but it could be confusing. Whatever we decide, this was very educational for me. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DD2D795.6020106>