|
|
|
Re: IRQs and memory consistency | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
On 10.04.2012 19:58, Wink Saville wrote:I used a wmb(); right after I set the value I wanted.
> Sounds to me like there needs to be a flush of the processor cache
> by using memory barriers.
should I use atomic ops instead of a wmb?
> I'm guessing that the IRQ is taken on a different thread and possibly
> a different processor and the value needs to be flushed. You might
> try having devid be an atomic_t and then use atomic_set
> and atomic_read so that the "proper" memory barriers are used.
The interrupt can't happen until the value is assigned completely in
one thread. I'm sure.
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
[Newbies FAQ] [Linux Kernel Development] [IETF Annouce] [Git] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Networking] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ACPI]
![]() |
![]() |