Re: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page

[Nick Piggin]

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>
> > But nit picking aside, is it true that we need a load barrier before
> > unlock? (store barrier I agree with) The ppc64 changeset in question
> > indicates yes, but I can't quite work out why. There are noises in the
> > archives about this, but I didn't pinpoint a conclusion...
>
>
> A spinlock may be used to read a consistent set of variables. If load
> operations would be moved below the spin_unlock then one may get values
> that have been updated after another process acquired the spinlock.

Of course, thanks. I was only thinking of the case where loads
were moved from the unlocked into the locked section.

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