Re: [PATCH 00/18] x86: Ticket lock + cmpxchg cleanup

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On 08/24/2011 04:05 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/24/2011 03:59 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 08/24/2011 03:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Could we just kill SMP support for OOSTORE machines now?  That would be
>>>> the cleanest possible fix...
>>> No it wouldn't. The asm version would *still* be cleaner than the "C
>>> plus random barriers".
>>>
>>> It's not like the C version is "portable" in any case.
>> If there's no need to have a locked instruction, then it could simply be:
>>
>>     barrier();
>>     lock->head++;
>>     barrier();
>>
>> with no need for asm at all.
>>
> That's not guaranteed in any way to generate a locally atomic instruction.

Doesn't need to be.  The final write needs to be locally atomic, but we
assume that a lot.

    J
--
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/