[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers
    On Tuesday 7 March 2006 21:09, David Howells wrote:
    > Alan Cox <> wrote:
    > > Better meaningful example would be barriers versus an IRQ handler. Which
    > > leads nicely onto section 2
    > Yes, except that I can't think of one that's feasible that doesn't have to do
    > with I/O - which isn't a problem if you are using the proper accessor
    > functions.
    > Such an example has to involve more than one CPU, because you don't tend to
    > get memory/memory ordering problems on UP.

    On UP you at least need compiler barriers, right? You're in trouble if you think
    you are writing in a certain order, and expect to see the same order from an
    interrupt handler, but the compiler decided to rearrange the order of the writes...

    > The obvious one might be circular buffers, except there's no problem there
    > provided you have a memory barrier between accessing the buffer and updating
    > your pointer into it.
    > David


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-08 09:27    [W:0.019 / U:10.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site