lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:

>>You acknowledge that you have to fix ia64 to match current semantics
>>first, right?
>
>
> Right. I believe I have done so by making both smb_mb_* full barriers.

All bitop and atomic test_and_set, inc_return, etc etc (ie. everything
that modifies the operand and returns something) needs to be a full
barrier before and after too.

>>Now people seem to be worried about the performance impact that will
>>have, so I simply suggest that adding two or three new macros for the
>>important cases to give you a 90% solution.
>
>
> We could transition some key locations of core code to use _mode bitops
> if there are performance problems.
>
>
>>I think Documentation/atomic_ops.txt isn't bad. smp_mb__* really
>>is a smp_mb, which can be optimised sometimes.
>
>
> Ok. Then we are on the same page and the solution I presented may be
> acceptable. I have a new rev here that changes the naming a bit but I
> think we are okay right?

Not sure, to be honest. I think it is probably something which needs
input from all the other arch people, and Linus, if you intend to use
it to introduce new types of barriers.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
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: 2006-04-01 04:59    [W:0.231 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site