From owner-freebsd-alpha Fri Dec 15 12:19:19 2000 From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 15 12:19:17 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from mail.du.gtn.com (mail.du.gtn.com [194.77.9.57]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D816B37B400; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cicely.de (cicely.de [194.231.9.142]) by mail.du.gtn.com (8.11.0.Beta3/8.11.0.Beta3) with ESMTP id eBFKJDh18081 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified OK); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:19:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [fec0:0:0:104::5]) by mail.cicely.de (8.11.0.Beta1/8.11.0.Beta1) with ESMTP id eBFKJUm26388 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:19:36 +0100 (CET) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBFKJUL62222; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:19:30 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:19:30 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: John Baldwin Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mb and wmb in atomic_ Message-ID: <20001215211930.D62048@cicely5.cicely.de> References: <20001215193443.B62048@cicely5.cicely.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:35:47AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:35:47AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 15-Dec-00 Bernd Walter wrote: > > Why are the mb and wmb operations needed in the atomic_ functions? > > If I understood it correctly the locked operations are in synced > > with others CPUs and there is no memory operation beside the variable > > itself. > > They should probably only be used with the 'acq' and 'rel' variants. Hmm, btw, > it looks like I have the order of the barriers in the 'acq' and 'rel' variants > wrong. The barriers should be on the inside, not the outside. Anyone disagree? Depending on atomic(9) I agree. I don't asume the acq variant realy needs one as the locked operation should be finished at once at least out of the CPUs thus no post operation has the chance to make anything before. Do we have the situation anywhere that the bus reorders memory access? Do we care about this? -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message