lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 21 Jan 2003 02:16:24 -0500 (EST)
FromZwane Mwaikambo <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask
On 20 Jan 2003, Alan wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 05:18, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > +	/* Wait for response */
> > +	while (atomic_read(&data.started) != num_cpus)
> > +		barrier();
> 
> Only old old intel x86 that does -bad- things as it
> generates a lot of bus locked cycles. Better to do
> 
> 	while(atomic_read(&data.started) != num_cpus)
> 		while(data.started.value != num_cpus)
> 		{
> 			barrier();
> 			cpu_relax();
> 		}
> 
> I would think ?

Cool, would a cpu_relax only be sufficient since that also has the memory 
barrier?

	Zwane
-- 
function.linuxpower.ca

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32    [from the cache]
©2003-2008