[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200912082252.51916.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:52:51 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)
> > Sure they can. Control dependencies are trivial - it's called "branch
> > prediction", and everybody does it, and data dependencies don't exist on
> > many CPU architectures (even to the point of reading through a pointer
> > that you loaded).
>
> Wait a second. Are you saying that with code like this:
>
> if (x == 1)
> y = 5;
>
> the CPU may write to y before it has finished reading the value of x?
> And this write is visible to other CPUs, so that if x was initially 0
> and a second CPU sets x to 1, the second CPU may see y == 5 before it
> executes the write to x (whatever that may mean)?
No, the write really depends on x being 1 at any time before the comparison.
On the other hand x being != 0 during the comparison does not prevent the
write without proper locking or barriers.
Have a look at
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8211
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8212
especially at the alpha part what can happen when dealing with pointer accesses.
Christian
--
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