From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11504 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2009 04:07:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11465 invoked by uid 48); 3 Mar 2009 04:07:28 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090303040728.11464.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "fche at redhat dot com" To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20081001203800.6932.mhiramat@redhat.com> References: <20081001203800.6932.mhiramat@redhat.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug translator/6932] c->busy can be non-atomic. X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00569.txt.bz2 ------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2009-03-03 04:07 ------- > I don't think that atomic operations will guarantee memory order either, so > we're probably already missing barriers... For the "busy" flag, I don't think ordering issues arise if we continue to use the atomic.h API. Concurrent reads/writes are SMP-synchronized - that's the whole point. Note that we only write c->fields if the atomic_inc_return returned the proper value. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6932 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.