Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:22:09 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r235931 - head/sys/powerpc/include Message-ID: <358A54BA-6B8E-4685-8CDD-CCAC305ACA2B@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <4FBEB2F3.4060405@freebsd.org> References: <201205242045.q4OKjipb059398@svn.freebsd.org> <4FBEA493.4020702@freebsd.org> <EEFFC9C4-7469-4D70-A5C6-7F5CB19CAC28@xcllnt.net> <4FBEB2F3.4060405@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 24, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >>> Summary: >>> 1. *mb() must be lwsync or sync on all machines, except for wmb() = which could be eieio >>> 2. __ATOMIC_ACQ() must be isync (though could be reduced to lwsync = with bus_space changes) >>> 3. __ATOMIC_REL() must be lwsync or sync >>=20 >> This is absolutely not what I concluded from our discussions. I have = no idea >> how we could end up so out of sync... >>=20 >=20 > Thanks for the quick change. No idea how we got out of sync. I find = all of this synchronization stuff a little mind-bending, so sorry for = any miscommunication. __ATOMIC_ACQ() needed to also be isync on ppc64, = so I've fixed that up. Things should be good now. Ok. I didn't change wmb() to eieio as I wanted to avoid a pendulum = effect. I'll reread our emails and make sure wmb() is what we think it is and if so I'll do a followup commit. FYI, --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?358A54BA-6B8E-4685-8CDD-CCAC305ACA2B>