Re: [patch] new spinlock variant, spinlock-2.3.30-A4

Manfred Spraul (manfreds@colorfullife.com)
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:54:16 +0100

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i'm not at all convinced this is worth the trouble though, but it's an
> interesting and LOCK-less variant nevertheless ;)
>

spin_lock() must be a full memory barrier, we could relax the rules for
spin_unlock _only_ because read reordering of the x86 is asymetric.

Ie: you must add a "lock;" instruction to be safe 8(

--
	Manfred


-
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/