On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 16:59 +1100, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Michael,
>
> > Wouldn't this still be a problem on a UP kernel?
>
> I don't believe so - stores should be ordered with respect to the
> current CPU, and in the UP case we still get a barrier().
But what if the CPU decides to do the store t
Michael,
> Wouldn't this still be a problem on a UP kernel?
I don't believe so - stores should be ordered with respect to the
current CPU, and in the UP case we still get a barrier().
However, perhaps there are other considerations with the HV that I'm not
aware of. Anyone?
Cheers,
Jeremy
_
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 13:55 +1100, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Currently, we don't enforce any ordering for updates to the lppaca
> when enabling dtl logging, so we may end up enabling logging before the
> index fields have been established.
>
> This change adds a smp_wmb() before doing the actual enable
Currently, we don't enforce any ordering for updates to the lppaca
when enabling dtl logging, so we may end up enabling logging before the
index fields have been established.
This change adds a smp_wmb() before doing the actual enable.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kerr
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pser
