lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
Date
Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:11 AM
> Also, I think there is still the issue of ia64 not having the
> correct memory consistency semantics. To start with, all the bitops
> and atomic ops which both modify their operand and return a value
> should be full memory barriers before and after the operation,
> according to Documentation/atomic_ops.txt.


I suppose the usage of atomic ops is abused, it is used in both lock
and unlock path. And it naturally suck because it now requires full
memory barrier. A better way is to define 3 variants: one for lock
path, one for unlock path, and one with full memory fence.

- Ken
-
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: 2006-03-28 21:42    [W:0.051 / U:5.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site