[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906040948480.4880@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Michael S. Zick" <lkml@...ethan.org>
cc: Duane Griffin <duaneg@...da.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@...tech.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc8 [also: VIA Support]
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Michael S. Zick wrote:
>
> The C7-M processor uses "in-order retirement" not "out-of-order" - -
> I think the MCR's **should not** be set for "weak ordered writes" -
In-order retirement does not really imply anything at all about how write
ordering works out. In most CPU parlance, you'd say that you've "retired"
a write instruction when it has completed in the write queue - but it
would not mean anything in particular for memory ordering.
Of course, I don't think the C7 is just in-order retirement, I think it's
pretty much in-order everything. Usually you only specify that
"retirement" part when there is some out-of-order execution in other parts
of the pipeline, but I think the C7 is entirely in-order pipeline,
although I suspect the FPU side is likely somewhat separated.
But still, with a write buffer (and _no_ sane x86 does not have a write
buffer), that doesn't actually mean that the cache and memory accesses are
necessarily entirely in-order.
That said, how all the internal CPU registers are set is all black magic.
Linus
--
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