linux-kernel - Re: LFENCE instruction (was: [rfc][patch 3/3] x86: optimise barriers)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:06:09 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: LFENCE instruction (was: [rfc][patch 3/3] x86: optimise barriers)

> > > > You already must not place any data structures into WC memory --- for 
> > > > example, spinlocks wouldn't work there.
> > > 
> > > What do you mean "already"?
> > 
> > I mean "in current kernel" (I checked it in 2.6.22)
> 
> Ahh, that's not "current kernel", though ;)
> 
> 4071c718555d955a35e9651f77086096ad87d498
>
> > So drivers can't assume that wmb() works on write-combining memory.
> 
> Drivers should be able to assume that wmb() orders _everything_ (except
> some whacky Altix thing, which I really want to fold under wmb at some
> point anyway).
> 
> So I decided that old x86 semantics isn't right, and now it really is a
> lock op / sfence everywhere.

I see. I'm just curious --- is there any real usage for WC memory, except 
graphics card memory?

Mikulas
-
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/