> On Oct. 31, 2013, 6:19 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/shared.hpp, line 175 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/diff/2/?file=374598#file374598line175> > > > > Do we need any memory fencing here? > > Jie Yu wrote: > I thought about this when coding. My conclusion is that we should not > have a memory consistency issue here. Even if some reads after the read of > 'upgraded' here are reordered (i.e., executed before the read of 'upgraded'), > it won't cause any problem because we don't rely on 'upgraded' to establish > order between reads and writes to any other locations. > > Thoughts?
Marked 'upgraded' as volatile to prevent compiler from caching its value. - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/#review27860 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 31, 2013, 5:13 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 31, 2013, 5:13 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Vinod Kone, and Jiang > Yan Xu. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/shared.hpp faa11cc > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/shared_tests.cpp e520b4f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
