![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> Yes. On x86 (and x86-64) you'll never see this, because writes are always > seen in order regardless, and in addition, the spin_lock is actually > totally serializing anyway. On most other architectures, the spin_lock > will serialize all the writes too, but it's not guaranteed, so in theory > you're right. I suspect no actual architecture will do this, but hey, > when talking memory ordering, safe is a lot better than sorry. PowerPC doesn't serialize the writes on spin_lock, only on spin_unlock. (That is, previous writes can "leak" into the lock, but writes done before the unlock can't leak out of the spinlock). Now, I've just glanced at the thread, so I don't know if that's relevant to the problems you guys are talking about :-) Ben. - 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: 2006-11-06 09:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||