[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 09:17:59PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Things may not be quite as bad as they appear. On many architectures the
> > > store-mb-load pattern will work as expected. (In fact, I don't know which
> > > architectures it might fail on.)
> >
> > Several weak-memory-ordering CPUs. :-/
> Of the CPUs supported by Linux, do you know which ones will work with
> store-mb-load and which ones won't?

I have partial lists at this point. I confess to not having made
much progress porting my memory-barrier torture tests to the relevant
architectures over the past few weeks (handling the lack of synchronized
lightweight fine-grained timers being the current obstacle), but will
let people know once I have gotten the tests working on the machines
that I have access to.

I don't have access to SMP Alpha or ARM machines (or UP either, for that
matter), so won't be able to test those.

Thanx, Paul
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-22 18:03    [W:0.078 / U:5.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site