Lines Matching refs:ordering

12 Therefore, a load-load control dependency will not preserve ordering
19 This is not guaranteed to provide any ordering because some types of CPUs
31 However, stores are not speculated.  This means that ordering is
40 of ordering.  But please note that neither the READ_ONCE() nor the
59 It is tempting to try use control dependencies to enforce ordering on
78 	WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);  /* BUG: No ordering vs. load from a!!! */
91 have been applied.  Therefore, if you need ordering in this example,
92 you must use explicit memory ordering, for example, smp_store_release():
103 Without explicit memory ordering, control-dependency-based ordering is
121 preserve ordering.  For example:
141 Given this transformation, the CPU is not required to respect the ordering
145 to relying on control dependencies to produce this ordering, you should
161 "if" statement, destroying the control dependency's ordering properties.
172 destroying the control dependency's ordering:
192 	WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);  /* BUG: No ordering against the read from "a". */
194 It is tempting to argue that there in fact is ordering because the
211 "a" and the store to "c".  In short, control dependencies provide ordering
220       However, they do *not* guarantee any other sort of ordering:
222       later anything.  If you need these other forms of ordering, use
239       away the ordering.  Careful use of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()
254       need all the CPUs to agree on the ordering of a given store against