From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/12] x86/ticketlock: convert spin loop to C
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 07:53:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4C5C21E3.1020004@goop.org>
References: <cover.1279328276.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> <cf01e01095f802dc5082e82a8e96c84903e929a6.1279328276.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> <1280761639.1923.213.camel@laptop> <4C56E1A1.6020005@goop.org> <4C5C1F80020000780000EA6D@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C5C1F80020000780000EA6D@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

  On 08/06/2010 05:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> You certainly mean "the compiler currently treats this as being:" - I
> don't think there's a guarantee it'll always be doing so.
>
>> 	for (;;) {
>> 		if (inc.tickets.head == inc.tickets.tail)
>> 			goto out;
>> 		...
>> 	}
>> out:	barrier();
>> }
>>
>> (Which would probably be a reasonable way to clarify the code.)
> I therefore think it needs to be written this way.

Agreed.

     J