| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
cpu_relax() is documented in volatile-considered-harmful.txt to be a
memory barrier. However, everyone with the exception of Blackfin and
possibly ia64 defines cpu_relax() to be a compiler barrier.
Make the documentation reflect the general concensus.
Linus sayeth:
: I don't think it was ever the intention that it would be seen as anything
: but a compiler barrier, although it is obviously implied that it might
: well perform some per-architecture actions that have "memory barrier-like"
: semantics.
:
: After all, the whole and only point of the "cpu_relax()" thing is to tell
: the CPU that we're busy-looping on some event.
:
: And that "event" might be (and often is) about reading the same memory
: location over and over until it changes to what we want it to be. So it's
: quite possible that on various architectures the "cpu_relax()" could be
: about making sure that such a tight loop on loads doesn't starve cache
: transactions, for example - and as such look a bit like a memory barrier
: from a CPU standpoint.
:
: But it's not meant to have any kind of architectural memory ordering
: semantics as far as the kernel is concerned - those must come from other
: sources.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
