LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	ARM Linux Mailing List  <linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
	dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: I/O memory barriers vs SMP memory barriers
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:04:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3971.1174903451@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070325213843.GE22126@xi.wantstofly.org>

Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org> wrote:

> Does everybody agree on these semantics, though?  At least David seems
> to think that mb/rmb/wmb aren't required to order normal memory accesses
> against each other..

Ummm...  I've just realised that your statement here is ambiguous.  When you
say "aren't required to", do you mean "aren't necessary to" or do you mean
"don't have to"?  Isn't English a fun language?

Anyway, what I meant is that mb() and co. as they stand _must_ do everything
smp_mb() and co do respectively, _in_ _addition_ to other side effects.

	mb() implies smp_mb()
	rmb() implies smp_rmb()
	wmb() implies smp_wmb()
	...

David

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-03-26 10:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20070323111350.GD3980@xi.wantstofly.org>
     [not found] ` <e9c3a7c20703021312y5f7aa228i5d1c84a8e9ea5676@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]   ` <20070303111427.GB16944@xi.wantstofly.org>
     [not found]     ` <20070303113305.GB10515@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
     [not found]       ` <20070321221134.GA22497@xi.wantstofly.org>
     [not found]         ` <tnxlkhpgslz.fsf@arm.com>
2007-03-23 13:43           ` David Howells
2007-03-23 15:08             ` Lennert Buytenhek
2007-03-24 20:16             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-03-25 21:15             ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-03-25 21:38               ` Lennert Buytenhek
2007-03-26  3:24                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-03-26  8:46                   ` Lennert Buytenhek
2007-03-26 20:07                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-03-28 18:36                       ` Lennert Buytenhek
2007-03-26 10:04               ` David Howells [this message]
2007-03-26 10:07             ` David Howells

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3971.1174903451@redhat.com \
    --to=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=buytenh@wantstofly.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    --subject='Re: I/O memory barriers vs SMP memory barriers' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).