> The StrongARM has a broken SWP implementation which means there is no
> test-and-set instruction which is atomic to (cachable) memory. This makes
> it somewhat difficult to make an SMP implementation. I was wondering
> though... how about having an ELF section where all the spinlocks are
> placed which is relocated into a non-cached region of memory? Or are
> spinlocks part of structs these days?
The strong arm has both the lock bugs and the cache flush bugs. The
combination would make SMP suck badly I suspect
Collecting locks into an ELF section would be fun as some are dynamically
allocated - but since the field in the struct could notionally be a
pointer to an object elsewhere not impossible
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
