On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:33:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > and this barrier is no longer paired with anything until
> > > you realize there's a dependency barrier within READ_ONCE.
> > >
> > > Barrier pairing was a useful tool to check code validity,
> > > maybe there are other, better tools now.
> >
> > There are quite a few people who say that smp_store_release() is
> > easier for the tools to analyze than is smp_wmb(). My experience with
> > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > that they are correct.
>
> OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
the new improved READ_ONCE()?
Thanx, Paul
