lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: SMP spin-locks
Date

> Spinlocks are machine dependent. A simple increment of a byte
> memory variable, spinning if it's not 1 will do fine. Decrementing
> this variable will release the lock. A `lock` prefix is not necessary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> because all Intel byte operations are atomic anyway. This assumes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that the lock was initialized to 0. It doesn't have to be. It
> could be initialized to 0xaa (anything) and spin if it's not
> 0xab (or anything + 1).

If this is true, atomicity isn't enough to do it. Atomicity means that
there's a single instruction (and so it can't be interrupted mid-modify).
Atomicity (at least as the term is normally used) doesn't prevent the
cache-coherency logic from ping-ponging the memory location between two
processor's caches during the atomic operation.

DS

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.083 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site