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

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 08:51:58PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >Well if there is only one memory location involved, then smp_rmb() 
> >isn't
> >going to really do anything anyway, so it would be incorrect to use it.
> 
> rmb() orders *any* two reads; that includes two reads from the same
> location.

If the two reads are to the same location, all CPUs I am aware of
will maintain the ordering without need for a memory barrier.

						Thanx, Paul

> >Consider that smp_rmb basically will do anything from flushing the
> >pipeline to invalidating loads speculatively executed out of order. 
> >AFAIK
> >it will not control the visibility of stores coming from other CPUs 
> >(that
> >is up to the cache coherency).
> 
> The writer side should typically use wmb() whenever the reader side
> uses rmb(), sure.
> 
> 
> Segher
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/