lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: spin_unlock optimization(i386)
Date
From

Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:

> The reason you think it may deadlock is that deadlock is because you miss
> what happened before the "time zero" on CPU 1. Let's see the whole
> picture:

I guess I had a brain burp there. Good point that it will work correctly
in the case provided.

> That's what I understood by reading your previous posts. It seems we don't
> need to enforce any ordering in IA32 as the hardware is doing that for us.
> Right? Of course the current code can't hurt, it's only slower (like what
> we have with spin_unlock right now).

Agreed.

--
Erich Stefan Boleyn \_ <erich@uruk.org>
Mad but Happy Scientist \__ http://www.uruk.org/
Motto: "I'll live forever or die trying" ---------------------------

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.110 / U:1.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site