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 06:32:05 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <>
To:	Andi Kleen <>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Jesse Barnes <>,
Subject: Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper

On Saturday 08 September 2007 20:19, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2007 21:57:35 Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > Anyway, the lfence should be able to go away without so much trouble.
> > >
> > > You mean sfence? lfence in rmb is definitely needed.
> >
> > I mean lfence in smp_rmb().
> One point of rmb is to stop speculative loads and I don't think we
> can get that without lfence.

smp_rmb() should not need to do anything because loads are done
in order anyway. Both AMD and Intel have committed to this now.

The important point is that they *appear* to be done in order. AFAIK,
the CPUs can still do speculative and out of order loads, but throw
out the results if they could be wrong.
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