Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:54:16 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [patch] new spinlock variant, spinlock-2.3.30-A4 |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i'm not at all convinced this is worth the trouble though, but it's an > interesting and LOCK-less variant nevertheless ;) >
spin_lock() must be a full memory barrier, we could relax the rules for spin_unlock _only_ because read reordering of the x86 is asymetric.
Ie: you must add a "lock;" instruction to be safe 8(
-- Manfred
- 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/
| |