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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:36:05 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:48:45AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:51:29AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>If store forwarding is able to occur outside cache coherency protocol, > >>then I don't see why not. I would also be interested to know if this > >>is the case on real systems. > > > > > >We are discussing multiple writes to the same variable, correct? > > > >Just checking... > > Correct. I am having a hard time seeing how this would happen. Sooner or later, the cacheline comes to the store queue, defining the ordering. All changes that occurred in the store queue while waiting for the cache line appear to other CPUs as having happened in very quick succession while the cacheline resides with the store queue in question. So, what am I missing? Thanx, Paul - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists