Re: [PATCH 4/5] kgdb: Use atomic operators which use barriers
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri Apr 02 2010 - 19:29:59 EST
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Actually, in future threads you end up agreeing with my position...
I always agreed that it was not a memory barrier.
In fact, the commit that extended on the "volatile-considered-harmful"
patch from you has this quote from me in the commit logs:
: I don't think it was ever the intention that it would be seen as anything
: but a compiler barrier, although it is obviously implied that it might
: well perform some per-architecture actions that have "memory barrier-like"
: After all, the whole and only point of the "cpu_relax()" thing is to tell
: the CPU that we're busy-looping on some event.
: And that "event" might be (and often is) about reading the same memory
: location over and over until it changes to what we want it to be. So it's
: quite possible that on various architectures the "cpu_relax()" could be
: about making sure that such a tight loop on loads doesn't starve cache
: transactions, for example - and as such look a bit like a memory barrier
: from a CPU standpoint.
: But it's not meant to have any kind of architectural memory ordering
: semantics as far as the kernel is concerned - those must come from other
which I think is pretty clear.
But that quote seems to be the one where you then think I "agree" with
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/