lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: ordered memory access
Date
From
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> said:
> On 30 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote:

[...]

> >Intuitively I think it makes sense to do so, and I doubt it will be a
> >performance hit at all, but I am just guessing here.

> On alpha you'll avoid some mb/wmb additional asm instruction ;).
>
> If you don't test atomically the retval it make no sense to me to enforce
> ordering so the alpha implementation looks fine to me.

What if you intend to use something like:


atomic_inc(lock);
/* Do something */

and the /* Do something */ is moved _before_ the atomic_inc(lock)? For this
to be of any use in this way, you'd need the atomic_inc() and its ilk to
act as barriers. So it depends on the use to which they are put (or are
intended to be put).
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513

-
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 13:54    [W:0.048 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site