lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.114 / U:23.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site