On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > Looks like when you said "CPU memory barrier extends to all memory
> > references" you were probably referring to a _given_ CPU ... yes,
> > that statement is correct in that case.
>
> No. CPU memory
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> Looks like when you said "CPU memory barrier extends to all memory
> references" you were probably referring to a _given_ CPU ... yes,
> that statement is correct in that case.
No. CPU memory barriers extend to all CPU's. End of discussion.
It's no
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Are you saying that it is OK for the store to var to
be reordered below the clear_bit? If not, what are you
saying?
I might be making a radical turn-around here, but all of a
sudden I think it's actually a good idea to put a compl
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > For the purpose of this discussion (Linux memory
> > > barrier semantics, on WB memory), it is true of CPU
> > > and compiler barriers.
> >
> > On later Intel processors, if the memory address range being referenced
> > (and say written to) by the (lo
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
For the purpose of this discussion (Linux memory
barrier semantics, on WB memory), it is true of CPU
and compiler barriers.
On later Intel processors, if the memory address range being referenced
(and say written to) by the (lock
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> > > > Consider this (the above two functions exist
> > only for clear_bit(),
> > > > the atomic variant, as you already know), the
> > _only_ memory reference
> > > > we care about is that of the address of the
> > passed bit-
--- Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > Consider this (the above two functions exist
> only for clear_bit(),
> > > the atomic variant, as you already know), the
> _only_ memory reference
> > > we care about is that o
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > So let's make these proper no-ops, because that's exactly what we
> > > > require
> > > > these to be on the i386 platform.
> > >
> > > No. cle
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
Consider this (the above two functions exist only for clear_bit(),
the atomic variant, as you already know), the _only_ memory reference
we care about is that of the address of the passed bit-string:
(1) The compiler must not optimize / elid it (
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
From: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[8/8] i386: bitops: smp_mb__{before, after}_clear_bit() definitions
From Documentation/atomic_ops.txt, those archs that require explicit
memory barriers around clea
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Consider this (the above two functions exist only for clear_bit(),
> the atomic variant, as you already know), the _only_ memory reference
> we care about is that of the address of the passed bit-string:
>
> (1) The compiler must not optimize / elid it (i.e. we need to disall
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > From: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > [8/8] i386: bitops: smp_mb__{before, after}_clear_bit() definitions
> >
> > > From Documentation/atomic_ops.txt, those archs that require explicit
> > memory barriers around clear_b
Satyam Sharma wrote:
From: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[8/8] i386: bitops: smp_mb__{before, after}_clear_bit() definitions
From Documentation/atomic_ops.txt, those archs that require explicit
memory barriers around clear_bit() must also implement these two interfaces.
However, for i386,
From: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[8/8] i386: bitops: smp_mb__{before, after}_clear_bit() definitions
>From Documentation/atomic_ops.txt, those archs that require explicit
memory barriers around clear_bit() must also implement these two interfaces.
However, for i386, clear_bit() is a strict
14 matches
Mail list logo
