Re: Uses for memory barriers

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:23:49PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >This can't be right.  Together 1 and 2 would obviate the need for  
> >wmb().
> >The CPU doing "STORE A; STORE B" will always see the operations  
> >occuring
> >in program order by 1, and hence every other CPU would always see them
> >occurring in the same order by 2 -- even without wmb().
> >
> >Either 2 is too strong, or else what you mean by "perceived" isn't
> >sufficiently clear.
> 
> 2. is only for multiple stores to a _single_ memory location -- you
> use wmb() to order stores to _separate_ memory locations.

Precisely!!!

						Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/