On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It is not the architecture that matters here, it is just a definition of
> what ordering guarantees the locking primitives provide, independent of
> the architecture.
So we definitely come from very different backgrounds.
I don't care one *whit* about theoretical lock orderings. Not a bit.
I do care deeply about reality, particularly of architectures that
actually matter. To me, a spinlock in some theoretical case is
uninteresting, but a efficient spinlock implementation on a real
architecture is a big deal that matters a lot.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>