[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091023123327.GA14058@Krystal>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:33:27 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: sparc64 cmpxchg is not a full memory barrier anymore ?
* David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
> From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:32:42 -0400
>
> > The same applies to the other atomic instructions we find in this list.
> > How is the correct ordering of loads wrt to cmxchg (and other atomic
> > ops) still ensured by this modification?
>
> All actual sparc64 chips implement more strict ordering than
> the V9 specification permits. The memory barriers were just
> nops and actually not doing anything more than the chip
> already does for us.
OK. Perhaps adding a comment to that effect near sparc mb()
implementation would be appropriate ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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