[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p731wq6kb8i.fsf@verdi.suse.de>
Date: 20 Sep 2006 13:50:53 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: prasanna@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, systemtap@...rces.redhat.com,
systemtap-owner@...rceware.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> Ar Mer, 2006-09-20 am 09:18 +0100, ysgrifennodd Richard J Moore:
> > > Are you referring to Intel erratum "unsynchronized cross-modifying code"
> > > - where it refers to the practice of modifying code on one processor
> > > where another has prefetched the unmodified version of the code.
>
> > In the special case of replacing an opcode with int3 that erratum doesn't
> > apply. I know that's not in the manuals but it has been confirmed by the
> > Intel microarchitecture group. And it's not reasonable to it to be any
> > other way.
>
> Ok thats cool to know and I wish they'd documented it. Is the same true
> for AMD ?
It pretty much has to, otherwise lots of debuggers would be unhappy
-Andi
-
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