FEX-Emu/linux
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/FEX-Emu/linux.git synced 2024-12-13 20:33:15 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt: correct cpu_relax() documentation

Browse Source 
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>
This commit is contained in:
Russell King 2010-03-23 13:35:16 -07:00 committed by Linus Torvalds
parent 7731d9a5d4
commit 091e635e67
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
View File

@ -63,9 +63,9 @@ way to perform a busy wait is:
cpu_relax();
The cpu_relax() call can lower CPU power consumption or yield to a
hyperthreaded twin processor; it also happens to serve as a memory barrier,
so, once again, volatile is unnecessary. Of course, busy-waiting is
generally an anti-social act to begin with.
hyperthreaded twin processor; it also happens to serve as a compiler
barrier, so, once again, volatile is unnecessary. Of course, busy-
waiting is generally an anti-social act to begin with.
There are still a few rare situations where volatile makes sense in the
kernel: