On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The reason I don't like "conditionally precedes" is because it suggests
> > the ordering is not automatic even in the single-CPU case.
>
> Aside from MMIO accesses, why would you be using memory barriers in the
> single-CPU case?
Obviously you wouldn't. But you might be fooled into doing so if you saw
the term "conditionally precedes" together with an explanation that the
"condition" requires a memory barrier to be present. You might also draw
this erroneous conclusion if you are on an SMP system but your variable is
accessed by only one of the CPUs.
> If you aren't using memory barriers, then just plain
> "precedes" works fine -- "conditionally precedes" applies only to memory
> barriers acting on normal memory (again, MMIO is handled specially).
No, no! Taken out of context this sentence looks terribly confused.
Read it again and you'll see what I mean. (Think about what it says for
people who don't use memory barriers on SMP systems.) Here's a much more
accurate statement:
If you are in the single-CPU case then just plain "precedes"
works fine for normal memory accesses (MMIO is handled
specially).
But when multiple CPUs access the same variable all ordering
is "conditional"; each CPU must use a memory barrier to
guarantee the desired ordering.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
