lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: (*(unsigned long *)&jiffies)++;
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Petko Manolov wrote:
> >AFAIK incl _lock_ the bus even without "lock" in fornt of the
> >instruction
>
> The lock on the bus is _necessary_ in SMP. It would be very bad if each
> incl would implicitly do a lock on the bus. It would forbid you to use
> incl in SMP for single threaded code (for example inside critical
> sections).

Lock don't hurt anyway.
May be i am not right, but i think there was some simple instructions
(not only incl) that force lock before them in both cases.

> Even if it would lock on the bus it wouldn't matter. C only knows about
> signle threading. So as far as C is concerned it's fine if it doesn't use
> incl for incrementing volatile variables IMHO.

I think so. The RISC-ifing make gcc optimize it as read, inc, write...
But this tread become pointless ;-))

regards,
Petkan

-
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:0.089 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site