Messages in this thread | | | From | "Manfred" <> | Subject | Re: AVL trees vs. Red-Black trees | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:23:20 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |