Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads
Subject: Re: Implicit memory barriers on x86
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:31:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4DF343EC.DB0F8DD0@web.de>
References: <071a9804-ceb8-4276-bfe2-7796359170ec@16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> <9c31e82b-efad-4737-800c-921f623384f5@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: terekhov@web.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="MCbSEzW5qwGLFMNXJh39IQ"; logging-data="9493"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pKhtLEewQJLHngCKNa/FikA1zglTmNMw="
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GKa2tudA0spAu62bgxoZKCTdAAo=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.programming.threads:257


Rani Sharoni wrote:
[...]
> Now I need to re-figure why the non locked write works for spinlock
> release...

Because preceding reads and writes can not 'sink' below the write (be
delayed past it). x86 writes have 'release' semantics.

regards,
alexander.