lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Potential 2.2.8 scheduler bugs
On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 01:59:39AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I thought that running wmb() in cpu 1 was forcing the CPU1 to write
> ordered in memory, but nothing more. So according to me writing in-order
> using CPU 1, doesn't imply that CPU 2 will be forced to read in-order too
> from memory (and even if it will be forced in x86 that's not enough).
>
> This is why I think that to force CPU 2 to read in-order we must use
> rmb(), even if the other cpu uses wmb() to allow us to read the right
> thing if we synchronize our reads too.
>
> I would like to know if my understanding of wmb() is wrong ;).

Your understanding is correct. Both Alpha and Sparc64 SMP
will be affected by out of order reads without an rmb.


r~

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.326 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site