Re: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety

Linus Torvalds wrote:

(Actually, I think one special case of non-temporal instruction is the "repeat movs/stos" thing: I think you should _not_ use a "repeat stos" to unlock a spinlock, exactly because those stores are not ordered wrt each other, and they can bypass the write queue. Of course, doing that would be insane anyway, so no harm done ;^).

oops - there  goes the "unlock an array of spinlocks
in a single instruction" idea. :-)

Helge Hafting

-
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/

---

• References:
  • Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: opl3_oss use after free.
• Next by Date: RE: [PATCH] hugetlb_no_page might break hugetlb quota
• Previous by thread: Re: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety
• Next by thread: Re: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]