[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxii+-g_=Etsi6wXsZMJOn0eQWdZ+Kwc9hLqBCwfDBiJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:25:32 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
boqun.feng@...il.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> You would ask that question when I am many thousands of miles from my
> copy of the Alpha reference manual! ;-)
I don't think I've touched a paper manual in years. Too m uch effort
to index and search. Look here
http://download.majix.org/dec/alpha_arch_ref.pdf
> There is explicit wording in that manual that says that no multi-variable
> ordering is implied without explicit memory-barrier instructions.
Right. But the whole "read -> conditional -> write" ends up being a
dependency chain to *every* single write that happens after the
conditional.
So there may be no "multi-variable ordering" implied in any individual
access, but despite that a simple "read + conditional" orders every
single store that comes after it. Even if it orders them
"individually".
Linus
--
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