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  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]
Date:	Sat, 8 Sep 2007 10:53:36 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <>
To:	Nick Piggin <>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Jesse Barnes <>,
Subject: Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper

On Friday 07 September 2007 20:13:12 Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sunday 09 September 2007 03:48, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > There is some suggestion in the source code that non-temporal stores
> > (movntq) are weakly ordered. But AFAIKS from the documents, it is ordered
> > when operating on wb memory. What's the situation there?
> Sorry, it looks from the AMD document like nontemporal stores to wb
> memory can go out of order.

Yes, that is how NT stores are defined.
> If this is the case, we can either retain the sfence in smp_wmb(), or noop
> it, and put explicit sfences around any place that performs nontemporal
> stores...

We do this already, but in most cases it doesn't matter anyways. We AFAIK
do not rely on any ordering for copy_*_user for example. There are not
that many users of nt so it's not a huge issue.

> Anyway, the lfence should be able to go away without so much trouble.

You mean sfence? lfence in rmb is definitely needed.

sfence on x86-64 is not strictly needed, but also shouldn't hurt very much 
so I always kept it in.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists