[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C3A675.7050108@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:20:53 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, 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, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, 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
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Please check the definition of "cache coherence".
>
>
> Which of the twelve thousand such definitions? :-)
Every definition I have seen says that writes to a single memory
location have a serial order as seen by all CPUs, and that a read
will return the most recent write in the sequence (with a bit of
extra mumbo jumbo to cover store queues and store forwarding).
Within such a definition, I don't see how would be allowed for a
single CPU to execute reads out of order and have the second read
return an earlier write than the first read.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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