![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||