Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ordered memory access | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 30 Sep 1999 14:39:59 +0200 |
| |
>>>>> "Manfred" == Manfred Spraul <manfreds@colorfullife.com> writes:
Manfred> Jes Sorensen wrote: >> atomic_foo() should be ordered, at least that the idea behind it as >> far as I understand.
Manfred> That might be the idea, but that's not the implementation: Manfred> Pentium III documentation: (24319201.pdf)
Right, intuitively I would expect an atomic operation to guarantee read/write ordering though, however if this is not what we want, we should at least document it.
Manfred> I've read that rmb() is expensive on RISC architectures, what Manfred> about adding "get_?mb()" functions?
rmb() is still less expensive than plain mb().
Jes
- 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/
| |