[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709101433090.26043@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
horms@...ge.net.au, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com, rpjday@...dspring.com,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, zlynx@....org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The one exception to this being the case where process-level code is
> communicating to an interrupt handler running on that same CPU -- on
> all CPUs that I am aware of, a given CPU always sees its own writes
> in order.
Yes but that is due to the code path effectively continuing in the
interrupt handler. The cpu makes sure that op codes being executed always
see memory in a consistent way. The basic ordering problem with out of
order writes is therefore coming from other processors concurrently
executing code and holding variables in registers that are modified
elsewhere. The only solution that I know of are one or the other form of
barrier.
-
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