lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Availability of kdb

    Jamie,

    I referenced a great book an an email to Rik Van Reil. It's got a great
    explanation of this stuff.

    :-)

    Jeff

    Jamie Lokier wrote:
    >
    > Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
    > > This means it completely unnecessary to assert LOCK# for the unlock
    > > case, since there are no ordering issues persay - the other processors
    > > are spinning on the lock already and cannot get through.
    >
    > Yes I know I left out the context. Doesn't change what I'm about to
    > say. Erm, this does not appear to address ordering between the spinlock
    > and access to _other_ memory locations. I know you're right and your
    > information is very interesting, but it doesn't appear to address the
    > point... only knowledge of processor ordering tells us that `movb' for
    > spin-unlock always flushes prior pending writes before unlocking.
    >
    > That's something that comes from manuals etc. and indeed, the _bugs_ in
    > that show up on the scopes (circa 1994 as you said).
    >
    > -- Jamie
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:2.156 / U:0.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site