[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709081053.36842.ak@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 10:53:36 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
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.
-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