linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706271958340.5213@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, chris@...ee.ca,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 
> > > Stores never "leak up". They only ever leak down (ie past subsequent loads 
> > > or stores), so you don't need to worry about them. That's actually already 
> > > documented (although not in those terms), and if it wasn't true, then we 
> > > couldn't do the spin unlock with just a regular store anyway.
> > 
> > Yes, Intel has never done that. They'll probably never do it since it'll 
> > break a lot of system software (unless they use a new mode-bit that 
> > allows system software to enable lose-ordering). Although I clearly 
> > remember to have read in one of their P4 optimization manuals to not 
> > assume this in the future.
> 
> That optimization manual was confused. 
> 
> The Intel memory ordering documentation *clearly* states that only reads 
> pass writes, not the other way around.

Yes, they were stating that clearly. IIWNOC (If I Were Not On Crack) I 
remember them saying to not assume any ordering besides the data 
dependency and the CPU self-consistency in the future CPUs, and to use 
*fence instructions when certain semantics were required.
But google did not help me in finding that doc, so maybe I were really on 
crack :)



- Davide


-
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/