linux-kernel - Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Dong Feng <middle.fengdong@...il.com>, ak@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:18:35AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 
> > I believe the reason for not doing something like this on x86 was
> > the fact that we still support i386 processors, which don't have the
> > cmpxchg instruction.  That's fair enough, but I would be opposed to
> > making semaphores bigger and slower on PowerPC because of that.
> > Hence the two different styles of implementation.
> 
> The i386 is older than some of the kernel hackers, and given that a
> modern kernel is pretty painful with less than say 16MB or RAM in
> practice, I don't see that it would be all that terrible to drop
> support for ancient CPUs at some point (yes, I know some newer
> embedded (and similar) CPUs might be affected here too, but surely not
> that many that people really use --- and they could just use 2.4.x).

Also note that i386 has a cmpxchg emulation for those machines that do not 
support cmpxchg.

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