From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:59:55 +1100 From: Anton Blanchard Subject: Re: smp_rmb in mm/memory.c in 2.6.10 Message-ID: <20050113215955.GB6309@krispykreme.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20050113210624.GG20738@wotan.suse.de> <20050113212912.93033.qmail@web14308.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050113212912.93033.qmail@web14308.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Kanoj Sarcar Cc: Andi Kleen , William Lee Irwin III , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Kanoj, > Okay, I think I see what you and wli meant. But the assumption that > spin_lock will order memory operations is still correct, right? A spin_lock will only guarantee loads and stores inside the locked region dont leak outside. Loads and stores before the spin_lock may leak into the critical region. Likewise loads and stores after the spin_unlock may leak into the critical region. Also they dont guarantee ordering for cache inhibited loads and stores. Anton -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org