aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/arch/arm/mach-shmobile
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorBoqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>2021-10-25 22:54:14 +0800
committerPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>2021-11-30 17:47:08 -0800
commitddfe12944e84830fe7dc490992e55b4fa773555e (patch)
tree160f73d10ba864f1fd4c8994794941a6d80175c3 /arch/arm/mach-shmobile
parentfa55b7dcdc43c1aa1ba12bca9d2dd4318c2a0dbf (diff)
downloadlinux-ddfe12944e84830fe7dc490992e55b4fa773555e.tar.gz
tools/memory-model: Provide extra ordering for unlock+lock pair on the same CPU
A recent discussion[1] shows that we are in favor of strengthening the ordering of unlock + lock on the same CPU: a unlock and a po-after lock should provide the so-called RCtso ordering, that is a memory access S po-before the unlock should be ordered against a memory access R po-after the lock, unless S is a store and R is a load. The strengthening meets programmers' expection that "sequence of two locked regions to be ordered wrt each other" (from Linus), and can reduce the mental burden when using locks. Therefore add it in LKMM. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210909185937.GA12379@rowland.harvard.edu/ Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc) Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com> (RISC-V) Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/arm/mach-shmobile')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions