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

    Andrea> On 30 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote:
    >> atomic_foo() should be ordered, at least that the idea behind it as

    Andrea> It isn't. Also the atomic_inc/dec and set_bit clear_bit
    Andrea> aren't.

    Andrea> Only test_and_*_bit and atomic_dec_and_test enforce ordering
    Andrea> between previous and following code.

    Aren't according to what architecture? Some architectures can only
    implement these by using a spin lock, thus they will certainly ensure
    ordering. My point here is, should we specify these functions to
    guarantee ordering, yes or no?

    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.

    Jes

    -
    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:0.021 / U:35.844 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site