![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
David Howells wrote: > Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com> wrote: > >> To head off the criticism, I admit this is an oversimplification, and true >> busy-waiters should be using cpu_relax(), which contains a barrier. > > Why would you want to use cpu_relax()? That's there to waste time efficiently, > isn't it? Shouldn't you be using smp_rmb() or something like that? > > David cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For non-smp architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt handlers. Some drivers do use atomic_* operations. -- Chris - 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: 2007-08-10 19:57 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||