From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: pmckenne@us.ibm.com
Cc: lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists with insertion
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 19:18:47 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011008.191847.15267448.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200110090155.f991tPt22329@eng4.beaverton.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <200110090155.f991tPt22329@eng4.beaverton.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <pmckenne@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
I am particularly interested in comments from people who understand
the detailed operation of the SPARC membar instruction and the PARISC
SYNC instruction. My belief is that the membar("#SYNC") and SYNC
instructions are sufficient,
SYNC is sufficient but way too strict. You don't explicitly say what
you need to happen. If you need all previous stores to finish
before all subsequent memory operations then:
membar #StoreStore | #StoreLoad
is sufficient. If you need all previous memory operations to finish
before all subsequent stores then:
membar #StoreStore | #LoadStore
is what you want.
Thoughts?
I think if you need to perform IPIs and junk like that to make the
memory barrier happen correctly, just throw your code away and use a
spinlock instead.
Franks a lot,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-09 2:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-09 1:55 RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists with insertion Paul E. McKenney
2001-10-09 2:18 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2001-10-09 6:52 ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-09 9:03 ` Rusty Russell
2001-10-09 16:11 ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-10 1:39 ` Rusty Russell
2001-10-09 7:13 ` BALBIR SINGH
2001-10-09 7:46 ` Dipankar Sarma
2001-10-09 8:21 ` BALBIR SINGH
2001-10-09 8:48 ` Dipankar Sarma
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-09 5:27 Paul McKenney
2001-10-09 5:56 ` David S. Miller
2001-10-09 6:43 ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-09 15:24 Paul McKenney
2001-10-09 15:28 Paul McKenney
2001-10-09 15:45 Paul McKenney
2001-10-09 17:00 ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-10 3:33 ` Paul Mackerras
2001-10-10 17:02 ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-09 16:51 Manfred Spraul
2001-10-09 17:46 Paul McKenney
2001-10-09 18:01 Paul McKenney
2001-10-10 1:19 Paul McKenney
2001-10-10 1:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-10-10 21:47 Paul McKenney
2001-10-10 22:22 ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-10 22:27 ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-11 1:56 Paul E. McKenney
2001-10-12 4:14 ` Rusty Russell
2001-10-13 14:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20011008.191847.15267448.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=pmckenne@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox