Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:05:50 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: spin_unlock optimization(i386) |
| |
Hey, I'm happy.
Everybody has convinced me that yes, the Intel ordering rules _are_ strong enough that all of this really is legal, and that's what I wanted. I've gotten sane explanations for why serialization (as opposed to just the simple locked access) is required for the lock() side but not the unlock() side, and that lack of symmetry was what bothered me the most.
Oliver made a strong case that the lack of symmetry can be adequately explained by just simply the lack of symmetry wrt speculation of reads vs writes. I feel comfortable again.
Thanks, guys, we'll be that much faster due to this..
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |