Re: RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists with insertion

[Richard Henderson]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:47:05PM -0700, Paul McKenney wrote:
> > I don't think it's actually all that bad.  There won't be all
> > that many places that require the rmbdd, and they'll pretty
> > much exactly correspond to the places in which you have to put
> > wmb for all architectures anyway.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand...  This rmbdd() would use IPIs to
> get all the CPUs' caches synchronized, right?

Err, I see your confusion now.

"Correspond" meaning "for every wmb needed on the writer side,
there is likely an rmb needed on the reader side in a similar
place".

r~