[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811071459130.3711@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:08:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> I want to make sure
>
> __m_cnt_hi
> is read before
> mmio cnt_lo read
Hmm, let me make sure I understand why there is no wmb.
Paul, can you verify this?
Mathieu, you do the following:
read a
smp_rmb
reab b
if (test b)
write a
So the idea is that you must read b to test it. And since we must read a
before reading b we can see that we write a before either?
The question remains, can the write happen before either of the reads?
But since the read b is reading the hw clock, perhaps that just implies a
wmb on the hardware side?
-- Steve
--
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