lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.129 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site