Hi David,
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, David Howells wrote:
> Satyam Sharma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > OTOH, as per Linus' review it seems we can drop the "memory" clobber
> > and specify the output operand for the extended asm as "+m". But I
> > must admit I didn't quite understand that at all.
>
> As I understand it, the "+m" indicates to the compiler a restriction on the
> ordering of things that access that particular memory location, whereas a
> "memory" indicates a restriction on the orderings of all accesses to memory -
> precisely what you need to produce a lock.
Ok, thanks -- I didn't know gcc's behaviour w.r.t. "+m" at all, but in my
defense I'd add all this was quite poorly/wrongly documented in the docs.
> There are a number of things that use test_and_set_bit() and co to implement a
> lock or other synchronisation. This means that they must exhibit LOCK-class
> barrier effects or better. LOCK-class barrier effects mean, more or less,
> that all memory accesses issued before the lock must happen before all memory
> accesses issued after the lock. But it most happen at both CPU-level and
> compiler-level. The "memory" constraint instructs the compiler in this
> regard.
Yes, thanks for laying this out so clearly, again. So combined with what
you explained above, I think I now fully understand why most of this
series was incorrect ...
> Remember also that this is gcc black magic and so some of it has had to be
> worked out empirically - possibly after sacrificing a goat under a full moon.
:-)
Satyam
-
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]
