RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2

From: Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen_at_intel.com>
Date: 2006-03-31 14:23:10
Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:12 PM
> > > We are talking about IA64 and IA64 only generates an single instruction 
> > > with either release or acquire semantics for the case in which either 
> > > smb_mb__before/after_clear_bit does nothing.
> > > 
> > > Neither acquire nor release is a memory barrier on IA64.
> > 
> > 
> > The use of
> >         smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
> >         clear_bit( ... );
> > 
> > is: all memory operations before this call will be visible before
> > the clear_bit().  To me, that's release semantics.
> 
> What of it? Release semantics are not a full fence or memory barrier.
> 
> > On ia64, we map the following:
> > #define Smp_mb__before_clear_bit      do { } while (0)
> > #define clear_bit                     clear_bit_mode(..., RELEASE)
> > 
> > Which looked perfect fine to me.  I don't understand why you say it does
> > not provide memory ordering.
> 
> It does not provide a memory barrier / fence. Later memory references can 
> still be moved by the processor above the instruction with release semantics.


This is probably a classic example of a sucky name leads to confusion.
There are smp_mb_ in the name, however, the semantics is really defined
as a one-way memory barrier and probably is the main reason of contention
in this discussion :-(

Another good reason to get rid of this silly smp_mb_before/after_clear_bit.

- Ken



wrong confusing implementation
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Mar 31 14:23:00 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-31 14:23:38 EST