lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: AVL trees vs. Red-Black trees
Date
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@uni-koblenz.de>
> They are, at least for everything that can (could ...) run Windows NT for
> which strong ordering is a requirement. This only covers ordering for
> cached memory accesses; ordering between cached and uncached accesses or
> uncached accesses is no generally strongly ordered and even for cached
> memory optionally more liberal ordering may be available as an option.

The PPC doesn't enforce strong ordering, and the PPC supported WinNT:
601:"loads and stores that miss the cache can be reordered as they arbitrate
for the system bus" (Chapter 4.10 from the PowerPC 601 RISC Microprocessor
User's Manual).
603: even speculative write operations that don't "alter the target
location" could occur.


I found no documentation about the Alpha, do you know if the full memory
barriers during spin_unlock() are required? The Alpha supported WinNT, and
_if_ the alpha enforces write ordering, then we could remove this memory
barrier/replace it with a weaker memory barrier.

Thanks,
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site