[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200609090049.20416.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 00:49:19 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: paulmck@...ibm.com, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers
Am Samstag, 9. September 2006 00:25 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > Again you have misunderstood. The original code was _not_ incorrect. I
> > > was asking: Given the code as stated, would the assertion ever fail?
> >
> > I claim the right to call code that fails its own assertions incorrect. :-)
>
> Touche!
>
> > > The code _was_ correct for my purposes, namely, to illustrate a technical
> > > point about the behavior of memory barriers.
> >
> > I would say that the code may fail the assertion purely based
> > on the formal definition of a memory barrier. And do so in a subtle
> > and inobvious way.
>
> But what _is_ the formal definition of a memory barrier? I've never seen
> one that was complete and correct.
I' d say "mb();" is "rmb();wmb();"
and they work so that:
CPU 0
a = TRUE;
wmb();
b = TRUE;
CPU 1
if (b) {
rmb();
assert(a);
}
is correct. Possibly that is not a complete definition though.
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists