[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2cbda24e96a49c3ab7cf7039c515f9fc@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:51:58 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv
> Well if there is only one memory location involved, then smp_rmb()
> isn't
> going to really do anything anyway, so it would be incorrect to use it.
rmb() orders *any* two reads; that includes two reads from the same
location.
> Consider that smp_rmb basically will do anything from flushing the
> pipeline to invalidating loads speculatively executed out of order.
> AFAIK
> it will not control the visibility of stores coming from other CPUs
> (that
> is up to the cache coherency).
The writer side should typically use wmb() whenever the reader side
uses rmb(), sure.
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists