Re: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers

[Boaz Harrosh]

On 10/27/2009 01:51 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:30:45 +0530, "Leonidas ." said:
> 
>> So we can safely assume that pointer assignment will be done in an
>> atomic manner?
> 
> Has anybody ever actually made a *production* CPU that had non-atomic
> pointer assignments?  And how long before the crazed programmers lynched
> and burned the offending CPU designer at the stake? ;)
> 
> Non-atomic pointer assignments are the CPU design equivalent of Vogon poetry.
> Just Say No. With a shotgun if needed.

What don't you know? the CPU that started it all was like that, the x86 16-bit
"large" and "huge" model had a double register seg:offset set, also in-memory
was double-ints(2*16) even the i386 was running 16 bit modes for a long time.

Kernel still have 16-bit dosemu mode supported until today, no?

About the shotguns lynching and burning I'm not sure, but Intel survived
just fine.

Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/