lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: futex atomic vs ordering constraints
From
Date
On 09/02/2015 05:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For example, on x86, the locked instructions are obviously already
> sufficiently strong, but even if they weren't, kernel entry/exit is
> documented to be a serializing instruction (which is something
> insanely much stronger than just memory ordering). And I suspect there
> are similar issues on a lot of architectures where the memory ordering
> is done by the core, but the cache subsystem is strongly ordered (ie
> saen good SMP systems - so it sounds like tile needs the smp_mb()'s,
> but I would almost suspect that POWER and ARM might *not* need them).

Because POWER and ARM have serializing kernel entry/exit?
I think tile has relatively conventional cache/memory semantics,
but it's certainly true there is implicit memory ordering guarantee
for kernel entry/exit.

--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-04 19:41    [W:0.075 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site