| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100207103208.4e2ecfb4@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:32:08 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Michael Breuer <mbreuer@...jas.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: x86 - cpu_relax - why nop vs. pause? On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:28:51 -0500 Michael Breuer <mbreuer@...jas.com> wrote: > I did search and noticed some old discussions. Looking at both Intel > and AMD documentation, it would seem that PAUSE is the preferred > instruction within a spin lock. Further, both Intel and AMD > specifications state that the instruction is backward compatible with > older x86 processors. > that's odd.... rep nop and pause ought to be the same... -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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