Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:01:31 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync |
| |
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 09:17:59PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Things may not be quite as bad as they appear. On many architectures the > > > store-mb-load pattern will work as expected. (In fact, I don't know which > > > architectures it might fail on.) > > > > Several weak-memory-ordering CPUs. :-/ > > Of the CPUs supported by Linux, do you know which ones will work with > store-mb-load and which ones won't?
I have partial lists at this point. I confess to not having made much progress porting my memory-barrier torture tests to the relevant architectures over the past few weeks (handling the lack of synchronized lightweight fine-grained timers being the current obstacle), but will let people know once I have gotten the tests working on the machines that I have access to.
I don't have access to SMP Alpha or ARM machines (or UP either, for that matter), so won't be able to test those.
Thanx, Paul - 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/
| |