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    [W:0.032 / U:153.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site