lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page
David S. Miller wrote:

>From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
>Subject: Re: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page
>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:50:31 +1000
>
>
>>William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>
>>>spin_unlock() does not imply a memory barrier.
>>>
>>>
>>Intriguing...
>>
>
>BTW, I disagree with this assertion. spin_unlock() does imply a
>memory barrier.
>
>All memory operations before the release of the lock must execute
>before the lock release memory operation is globally visible.
>

Yes, it appears that way from looking at a sample set of arch
code too (ie. those without strictly ordered stores put an
explicit barrier there).

I've always understood spin_unlock to imply a barrier.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
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: 2005-06-28 08:32    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans