From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/5] PM: Make freeze_processes SMP-safe Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:04:12 +0100 Message-ID: <200611272104.13267.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200611252210.58203.rjw@sisk.pl> <200611270009.56736.rjw@sisk.pl> <20061126232858.GD13647@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20061126232858.GD13647@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: suspend-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: suspend-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Pavel Machek Cc: suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday, 27 November 2006 00:28, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > If frozen is atomic_t, do we need memory barrier? > > > > I think so. For example on x86-64 atomic_read() is just a read. > > I'm not sure, but for x86-64 barriers are nops, anyway, IIRC. Well, last time I checked they were "lfence" and "sfence", at least on SMP. Greetings, Rafael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV