Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:43:50 +0200 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: Availability of kdb |
| |
Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > This means it completely unnecessary to assert LOCK# for the unlock > case, since there are no ordering issues persay - the other processors > are spinning on the lock already and cannot get through.
Yes I know I left out the context. Doesn't change what I'm about to say. Erm, this does not appear to address ordering between the spinlock and access to _other_ memory locations. I know you're right and your information is very interesting, but it doesn't appear to address the point... only knowledge of processor ordering tells us that `movb' for spin-unlock always flushes prior pending writes before unlocking.
That's something that comes from manuals etc. and indeed, the _bugs_ in that show up on the scopes (circa 1994 as you said).
-- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |