[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87vdnmmnac.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:08:27 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@...tech.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, lkml@...ethan.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: LOCK prefix on uni processor has its use
Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@...tech.com> writes:
> * All X86 instructions except rep-strings are atomic wrt interrupts.
> * The lock prefix has uses on a UP processor: It keeps DMA devices from
> interfering with a read-modify-write sequence
In theory yes, but not in Linux -- normal drivers simply don't use LOCK in any way
on a UP kernel.
We discussed exactly this in the earlier subthread :)
> Now the question is: Is this a valid operation of a driver? Should the driver
> do such things, or is such a driver broken?
The driver is broken because if it relies on this it will not work on a UP kernel.
Also it's not portable and in general a bad idea.
> When would that occur? I'm trying
> to come up with a case, but typically you e.g. allocate some DMA buffer and
> then don't touch it until the hardware has processed it.
Is it known which driver has this problem?
-Andi (who finds hpa's "timing theory" to be more believable anyways)
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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