Please sign in to comment.
Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt: correct cpu_relax() do…
…cumentation 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: <email@example.com> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <email@example.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Loading branch information...
Showing with 3 additions and 3 deletions.