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

[Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>]

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > That's true of course, although there is no real guarantee for that.
>
> A CPU that did not provide this property ("cache coherence") would be
> most emphatically reviled.

That doesn't have anything to do with coherency as far as I can see.

It's just about the order in which a CPU (speculatively) performs the 
loads
(which isn't necessarily the same as the order in which it executes the
corresponding instructions, even).

> So we are pretty safe assuming that CPUs
> will provide it.

Yeah, pretty safe.  I just don't like undocumented assumptions :-)


Segher

-
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/