Re: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page

Nick Piggin
2005-06-28T06:25:10Z

David S. Miller wrote:

>From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
>Subject: Re: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page
>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:50:31 +1000
>
>
>>William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>
>>>spin_unlock() does not imply a memory barrier.
>>>
>>>
>>Intriguing...
>>
>
>BTW, I disagree with this assertion. spin_unlock() does imply a
>memory barrier.
>
>All memory operations before the release of the lock must execute
>before the lock release memory operation is globally visible.
>

Yes, it appears that way from looking at a sample set of arch
code too (ie. those without strictly ordered stores put an
explicit barrier there).

I've always understood spin_unlock to imply a barrier.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com