[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25257.1226055312@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:55:12 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> Assume the time source is a global clock which insures that time will never
> *ever* go backward. Use a smp_rmb() to make sure the cnt_lo value is read before
> __m_cnt_hi.
If you have an smp_rmb(), then don't you need an smp_wmb()/smp_mb() to match
it to make it work? And is your assumption valid that smp_rmb() will affect
memory vs the I/O access to read the clock? There's no requirement that
cnt_lo will have been read from an MMIO location at all.
David
--
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