Re: spin_unlock optimization(i386)

Erich Boleyn (erich@uruk.org)
Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:29:59 -0800


Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:

> The reason you think it may deadlock is that deadlock is because you miss
> what happened before the "time zero" on CPU 1. Let's see the whole
> picture:

I guess I had a brain burp there. Good point that it will work correctly
in the case provided.

> That's what I understood by reading your previous posts. It seems we don't
> need to enforce any ordering in IA32 as the hardware is doing that for us.
> Right? Of course the current code can't hurt, it's only slower (like what
> we have with spin_unlock right now).

Agreed.

--
    Erich Stefan Boleyn                      \_         <erich@uruk.org>
  Mad but Happy Scientist                      \__    http://www.uruk.org/
  Motto: "I'll live forever or die trying"        ---------------------------

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/