[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0609191634480.4631-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something. But if the same CPU loads the value
> > before the store becomes visible to cache coherency, it might see
> > the value out of any order any of the other CPUs sees.
>
> Agreed. But the CPUs would have to refer to a fine-grained synchronized
> timebase or to some other variable in order to detect the fact that there
> were in fact multiple different values for the same variable at the same
> time (held in the different store queues).
Even that wouldn't be illegal. No one ever said that any particular write
becomes visible to all CPUs at the same time.
> If the CPUs looked only at that one single variable being stored to,
> could they have inconsistent opinions about the order of values that
> this single variable took on? My belief is that they could not.
Yes, I think this must be right. If a store is hung up in a CPU's store
buffer, it will mask later stores by other CPUs (i.e., prevent them from
becoming visible to the CPU that owns the store buffer). Hence all stores
that _do_ become visible will appear in a consistent order.
But my knowledge of outlandish hardware is extremely limited, so don't
take my word as gospel.
Alan
-
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