Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: spin_unlock optimization(i386) | Date | Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:29:59 -0800 | From | Erich Boleyn <> |
| |
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/
| |