Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv

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

 



David Howells wrote:
Chris Snook <[email protected]> wrote:

To head off the criticism, I admit this is an oversimplification, and true
busy-waiters should be using cpu_relax(), which contains a barrier.

Why would you want to use cpu_relax()?  That's there to waste time efficiently,
isn't it?  Shouldn't you be using smp_rmb() or something like that?

David

cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For non-smp architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt handlers. Some drivers do use atomic_* operations.

	-- Chris
-
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]
  Powered by Linux