Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:38:49 +0200 | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Subject | Re: ordered memory access |
| |
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch> wrote:
>atomic_foo() should be ordered, at least that the idea behind it as >far as I understand. > >Otherwise you want to look at mb(), rmb() and wmb(). mb() is a generic >memory barrier, wmb() makes sure a write is issues before another >write() and rmb() ... you get the idea ;-)
The last time I discussed this with Paul Mackerras, he told me that the atomic_xxx functions were not expected to enforce ordering. (At this time, the linuxppc versions didn't do a sync instruction for this reason). I didn't check recent linuxppc versions however.
-- Perso. e-mail: <mailto:bh40@calva.net> Work e-mail: <mailto:benh@mipsys.com> BenH. Web : <http://calvaweb.calvacom.fr/bh40/>
- 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/
| |