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    [W:0.044 / U:59.932 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site