linux-kernel - Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper

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: <20070908113056.66fc97b7@the-village.bc.nu>
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/