Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:00:49 -0600 | From | "Jeff V. Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |