[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pserialize(9) vs. TAILQ
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Dennis Ferguson
> On 25 Nov, 2014, at 00:56 , Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-kern%mumble.net@localhost> wrote:
>> My confusion came from that I thought memory ordering of load is more
>> flexible in general. I also didn't quite understand "dependent-load".
>> I have been only reading NetBSD kernel code to learn memory ordering;
>> and I believe, nothing in the tree utilize this topologycal
>> "dependent-load". I may be missing something though.
>> We do have at least one use of nontrivial data-dependent loads
>> in-tree, in pcq(9), as Dennis noted.
> More than that, I think. If I'm not mistaken there are also examples in
> When there is code which fills in a structure, followed by a membar_producer(),
> followed by an assignment to a pointer to point at the structure, it is very
> unlikely that there will be barriers in the places where the pointer is dereferenced.
I'd *really* appreciate if you leave comments explaining those
Main Index |
Thread Index |