Hi Peter, On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Peter Teoh <htmldeveloper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > in simple terms, any operation, in terms assembly instructions, which can be > executed in ONE instruction, is "atomic", because, just like an atom, it > cannot be broken up into parts. any instructions that is longer than one, > for eg, TWO instruction, is NOT atomic, because in BETWEEN the first and 2nd > instruction, something like an interrupt can come in, and affect the values > of the operand when it is passed from instruction one to second instruction. Nice explanation. Thanks, Arun > To save me from reiteration: > > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-dalign/ (search for > "atomicity"). > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/381244/purpose-of-memory-alignment > > http://lwn.net/Articles/260832/ > > http://www.songho.ca/misc/alignment/dataalign.html > > http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~palsetia/cit595s08/Lectures08/alignmentOrdering.pdf > > Essentially, atomicity and non-alignment become problematic when u tried to > to read using non-byte addressing mode with non-aligned address. > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Shraddha Kamat <sh2008ka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> what is the relation between atomic operations and memory alignment ? >> >> I read from UTLK that "an unaligned memory access is not atomic" >> >> please explain me , I am not able to get the relationship between >> memory alignment and atomicity of the operation. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kernelnewbies mailing list >> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies > > > > > -- > Regards, > Peter Teoh > > _______________________________________________ > Kernelnewbies mailing list > Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies > _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
