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: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 11:30:56 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 18:54:57 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote: > On Saturday 08 September 2007 08:26, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > FYI, we just released a new white paper describing memory ordering for > > Intel processors: > > http://developer.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/index.htm > > > > Should help answer some questions about some of the ordering primitives > > we use on i386 and x86_64. > > So, can we finally noop smp_rmb and smp_wmb on x86? Nakked-by: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com> You can only no-op it on 64bit Intel processors. On 32bit it needs to be conditional on whether your processor family (or back compat for it) as the Pentium Pro has some serious store ordering errata (hence the way it needs lock decb for spin_unlock) Alan - 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