From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20050627.220827.21920197.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <42C0D717.2080100@yahoo.com.au> References: <42C0AAF8.5090700@yahoo.com.au> <20050628040608.GQ3334@holomorphy.com> <42C0D717.2080100@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:50:31 +1000 Return-Path: To: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au Cc: wli@holomorphy.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > >spin_unlock() does not imply a memory barrier. > > > > Intriguing... BTW, I disagree with this assertion. spin_unlock() does imply a memory barrier. All memory operations before the release of the lock must execute before the lock release memory operation is globally visible. -- 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