On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:No, it doesn't really guarantee that. The thing is, there is no such thing as "globally visible". There is a "ordering of visibility wrt CPU's", but it's not global, it's quite potentially per-CPU. So a barrier on one CPU doesn't guarantee anything at all without a barrier on the *other* CPU. That said, the interrupt handling itself contains various barriers on the CPU's that receive interrupts, thanks to the spinlocking. But I do agree with Herbert that adding a "smb_mb()" is certainly in no way "obviously correct", because it doesn't talk about what the other side does wrt barriers and that word in memory. Linus -
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Faik Uygur | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1 |
| Ingo Molnar | [patch 02/13] syslets: add syslet.h include file, user API/ABI definitions |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: Data corruption issue with splice() on 2.6.27.10 |
| Steven Rostedt | Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug? |
