Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ This is true for x86's sfence/lfence, but raises a question about Linux's
> memory barriers. Does anybody expect that a sequence of smp_wmb and smp_rmb
> would ever provide a full smp_mb barrier? I've always assumed no, but I
> don't know if it is
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ This is true for x86's sfence/lfence, but raises a question about Linux's
memory barriers. Does anybody expect that a sequence of smp_wmb and smp_rmb
would ever provide a full smp_mb barrier? I've always assumed no, but I
don't know if it is actually
> mb() and smp_mb() always have and always will require a full mfence or lock
> prefixed instruction on x86. And we should remove this comment.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I queued the patch.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:12:52PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > [ This is true for x86's sfence/lfence, but raises a question about Linux's
> > memory barriers. Does anybody expect that a sequence of smp_wmb and smp_rmb
> > would ever provide a full
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 08:16:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Thanks v much for confirming, everyone.
> > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ---
> >
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 08:16:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks v much for confirming, everyone.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Index:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:12:52PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
[ This is true for x86's sfence/lfence, but raises a question about Linux's
memory barriers. Does anybody expect that a sequence of smp_wmb and smp_rmb
would ever provide a full smp_mb
mb() and smp_mb() always have and always will require a full mfence or lock
prefixed instruction on x86. And we should remove this comment.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I queued the patch.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OK this was going to be a quick patch, but after sleeping on it, I think
> it deserves a better analysis... I can prove the comment is incorrect with a
> test program, but I'm not as sure about my thinking that leads me to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> [ This is true for x86's sfence/lfence, but raises a question about Linux's
> memory barriers. Does anybody expect that a sequence of smp_wmb and smp_rmb
> would ever provide a full smp_mb barrier? I've always assumed no, but I
> don't know if it is
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> OK this was going to be a quick patch, but after sleeping on it, I think
> it deserves a better analysis... I can prove the comment is incorrect with a
> test program, but I'm not as sure about my thinking that leads me to call it
> also misleading.
Hi,
OK this was going to be a quick patch, but after sleeping on it, I think
it deserves a better analysis... I can prove the comment is incorrect with a
test program, but I'm not as sure about my thinking that leads me to call it
also misleading.
The comment being removed by this patch is
Hi,
OK this was going to be a quick patch, but after sleeping on it, I think
it deserves a better analysis... I can prove the comment is incorrect with a
test program, but I'm not as sure about my thinking that leads me to call it
also misleading.
The comment being removed by this patch is
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
OK this was going to be a quick patch, but after sleeping on it, I think
it deserves a better analysis... I can prove the comment is incorrect with a
test program, but I'm not as sure about my thinking that leads me to call it
also misleading.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
[ This is true for x86's sfence/lfence, but raises a question about Linux's
memory barriers. Does anybody expect that a sequence of smp_wmb and smp_rmb
would ever provide a full smp_mb barrier? I've always assumed no, but I
don't know if it is actually
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hi,
OK this was going to be a quick patch, but after sleeping on it, I think
it deserves a better analysis... I can prove the comment is incorrect with a
test program, but I'm not as sure about my thinking that leads me to call it
16 matches
Mail list logo
