On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 08:51:58PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >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.
If the two reads are to the same location, all CPUs I am aware of
will maintain the ordering without need for a memory barrier.
Thanx, Paul
> >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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
