[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061122170131.GC1755@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:01:31 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 09:17:59PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > Things may not be quite as bad as they appear. On many architectures the
> > > store-mb-load pattern will work as expected. (In fact, I don't know which
> > > architectures it might fail on.)
> >
> > Several weak-memory-ordering CPUs. :-/
>
> Of the CPUs supported by Linux, do you know which ones will work with
> store-mb-load and which ones won't?
I have partial lists at this point. I confess to not having made
much progress porting my memory-barrier torture tests to the relevant
architectures over the past few weeks (handling the lack of synchronized
lightweight fine-grained timers being the current obstacle), but will
let people know once I have gotten the tests working on the machines
that I have access to.
I don't have access to SMP Alpha or ARM machines (or UP either, for that
matter), so won't be able to test those.
Thanx, Paul
-
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