Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:11:32 -0800
From: Grant Grundler <iod00d@hp.com>
To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@hp.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
       "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
       Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
       Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@free.fr>, akpm@osdl.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
Message-ID: <20060329191132.GD31225@esmail.cup.hp.com>
References: <65953E8166311641A685BDF71D865826A23CF1@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <65953E8166311641A685BDF71D865826A23CF1@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 993
Lines: 23

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:33:57AM -0800, Boehm, Hans wrote:
...
> - At user level, the ordering semantics required for something like
> pthread_mutex_lock() are unfortunately unclear.  If you try to interpret
> the current standard, you arrive at the conclusion that
> pthread_mutex_lock() basically needs a full barrier, though
> pthread_mutex_unlock() doesn't.  (See
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2005/HPL-2005-217.html .)

Was the talk you presented at the May 2005 Gelato meeting in Cupertino
based on an earlier version of this paper?

That was a very good presentation that exposed the deficiencies
in the programming models and languages.  If the slides and/or
a recording are available, that might be helpful here too.

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