Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:42:22 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14 |
| |
* Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Shouldn't you make that "isync" dependent on SMP too? UP doesn't > > need it, since DMA will never matter, and interrupts are precise. > > I think the isync is necessary to keep heavily out of order processors > from getting ahead of themselves even on UP. Scanning back through > the powerpc spinlock code they seem to take the same view there as > well.
the asm/spinlock.h ops are only built on SMP kernels. mutex.h is for both UP and SMP. On UP you should need no synchronization, because the only way another context could interfere with your critical section is by getting interrupted, and interrupts are fully synchronizing, right? On UP the only synchronization needed is when a device reads/writes memory in parallel to the CPU.
Ingo - 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/
| |