>>> On 03.08.16 at 15:11, wrote:
> On 03/08/16 14:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On x86 there's no need for full barriers in loops waiting for some
>> memory location to change. Nor do we need full barriers between two
>> reads and two writes - SMP ones fully suffice (and I actually think
>> they could
On 03/08/16 14:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On x86 there's no need for full barriers in loops waiting for some
> memory location to change. Nor do we need full barriers between two
> reads and two writes - SMP ones fully suffice (and I actually think
> they could in fact be dropped, since atomic_*() op
On x86 there's no need for full barriers in loops waiting for some
memory location to change. Nor do we need full barriers between two
reads and two writes - SMP ones fully suffice (and I actually think
they could in fact be dropped, since atomic_*() operations should
already provide enough orderin
