Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints

[Chris Metcalf]

On 09/02/2015 05:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For example, on x86, the locked instructions are obviously already
> sufficiently strong, but even if they weren't, kernel entry/exit is
> documented to be a serializing instruction (which is something
> insanely much stronger than just memory ordering). And I suspect there
> are similar issues on a lot of architectures where the memory ordering
> is done by the core, but the cache subsystem is strongly ordered (ie
> saen good SMP systems - so it sounds like tile needs the smp_mb()'s,
> but I would almost suspect that POWER and ARM might *not* need them).

Because POWER and ARM have serializing kernel entry/exit?
I think tile has relatively conventional cache/memory semantics,
but it's certainly true there is implicit memory ordering guarantee
for kernel entry/exit.

--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.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/