RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

> > They are not. They provide equivalent barrier when performed
> > before/after a clear_bit, there is a big difference.
> Just to give another blunt brutal example, what is said here is equivalent
> to say kernel requires:
>    <end of critical section>
>    smp_mb_before_spin_unlock
>    spin_unlock
> Because it is undesirable to have spin_unlock to leak into the critical
> Section and allow critical section to leak after spin_unlock.  This is
> just plain brain dead.

I think we could say that lock semantics are different from barriers. They 
are more like acquire and release on IA64. The problem with smb_mb_*** is 
that the coder *explicitly* requested a barrier operation and we do not 
give it to him.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux