[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710162313240.5747@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: LFENCE instruction
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > PREFETCH* doesn't change program semantics. The processor is allowed to
> > ignore prefetch instruction if it doesn't have resources needed for
> > prefetch. It not ordered wrt. fences.
> >
> > PREFETCHNTA was implemented as prefetch into L1 cache and omitting L2 cache
> > on Pentium 3 and M --- and it is implemented as prefetch into L2 cache on
> > other --- do it doesn't really use any special buffers.
> >
>
> It's semantics allows it to, though. It's not clear to me whether it is
> actually necessary on existing chips.
>
> It does, I believe, way-restricted prefetch on existing silicon.
It is allowed to use special buffers for prefetch, but --- because
prefetch doesn't change program semantics, these special buffers must be
kept consistent just like caches --- they must be snooped for bus
transactions and they must be checked each time something writes to cache.
So I doubt anyone will ever implement it this way --- it's too much
silicon for too little effect.
Mikulas
> -hpa
-
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