[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0802220841230.15391@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:43:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: gregory.haskins@...il.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bill.huey@...il.com, kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com,
dsingleton@...sta.com, dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de,
dsaxena@...xity.net, ak@...e.de, gregkh@...e.de,
sdietrich@...ell.com, pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 05/14] rearrange rt_spin_lock sleep
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > My assumption is that the xchg() (inside update_current()) acts as an
> > effective wmb(). If xchg() does not have this property, then this
> > code is broken and patch 6/14 should also add a:
>
> xchg() is a strong implicit memory barrier, it implies smp_mb().
> (historic sidenote: it was the very first SMP primitive we had in
> Linux.)
OK, I've been proven wrong ;-)
I was just thinking of how an arch would implement it. No need for memory
barriers in just an xchg. But if Linux "implies it" then that's another
story.
Thanks,
-- Steve
/me learns something new everyday.
--
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