On 02/12/2010 04:46 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Editorial question: > > This synchronization only takes care of threads using the current process memory > map. It should not be used to synchronize accesses performed on memory maps > shared between different processes. Is that a limitation we can live with ? It makes sense for an initial version. It would be unfortunate if this were a permanent limitation, since using separate processes with explicit shared memory is a useful way to mitigate memory trampler issues. If we were going to allow that, it might make sense to add an address range such that only those processes which have mapped that range would execute the barrier. Come to think of it, it might be possible to use this somehow to avoid having to execute the barrier on *all* threads within a process. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
