Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:08:44 -0800 (PST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2 |
| |
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > See, no memory ordering there, because clear_bit already has a LOCK prefix. > No, not the memory ordering semantics you are thinking about. It just tell > compiler not to be over smart and schedule a load operation above that point > Intel compiler is good at schedule memory load way ahead of its use to hide > memory latency. gcc probably does that too, I'm not 100% sure. This prevents > the compiler to schedule load before that line.
The compiler? I thought we were talking about the processor.
I was referring to the LOCK prefix. Doesnt that insure the processor to go into a special state and make the bus go into a special state that implies a barrier?
- 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/
| |