[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: spin_unlock optimization(i386)

    > >The only thing you need is to make sure there is a store in "spin_unlock()",
    > So we could reimplement a rmb() (and in turn an mb()) that scales in SMP?
    > Something like:
    > #define rmb() ... "movb $0, ZERO_PAGE+32*smp_processor_id()"
    > This because the spin_unlock really is:
    > mb();
    > spin_lock.lock = 0;
    > If spin_unlock() doesn't need the lock, mb() doesn't need the lock
    > on the bus either.

    No. Any aligned store (which you get from the compiler) will be atomic
    even in an SMP system.

    > Am I missing something?

    I don't think so.

    What do you want the memory barrier for other than to prevent reads
    from crossing the unlock? (apologies if I missed this in an earlier

    Erich Boleyn
    PMD IA32 Architecture

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.019 / U:0.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site