[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <514C595D02000078000C7BA2@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:15:09 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Zhu Yanhai" <zhu.yanhai@...il.com>
Cc: <x86@...nel.org>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Richard Weinberger" <richard@....at>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, <muming.wq@...bao.com>,
"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: How does spin_unlock() in x86-64 align with the
description in Documention/memory-barriers.txt?
>>> On 22.03.13 at 12:58, Zhu Yanhai <zhu.yanhai@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> In the documention it reads,
>
> (2) UNLOCK operation implication:
>
> Memory operations issued before the UNLOCK will be completed before the
> UNLOCK operation has completed.
>
> Memory operations issued after the UNLOCK may be completed before the
> UNLOCK operation has completed.
>
> However, on x86-64 __ticket_spin_unlock() merely does,
>
> static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> asm volatile(
> ALTERNATIVE(UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX"incb (%0);"ASM_NOP3,
> UNLOCK_LOCK_ALT_PREFIX"movw $0, (%0)",
> X86_FEATURE_UNFAIR_SPINLOCK)
> :
> : "Q" (&lock->slock)
> : "memory", "cc");
> }
>
> While both UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX and UNLOCK_LOCK_ALT_PREFIX are empty
> strings. So how such a function keeps the memory operations issued
> before it completed?
Please read the section "Memory Ordering in P6 and More Recent
Processor Families" in SDM Vol 3.
Jan
--
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