[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100406135732.GC24003@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:57:32 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Scott Lurndal <scott.lurndal@...afsystems.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] X86: Optimise fls(), ffs() and fls64()
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if Intel's EM64 stuff makes this more deterministic, perhaps
> > David's implementation would work for x86_64 only?
>
> Limiting it to x86-64 would certainly remove all the worries about all the
> historical x86 clones.
>
> I'd still worry about it for future Intel chips, though. I absolutely
> _detest_ relying on undocumented features - it pretty much always ends up
> biting you eventually. And conditional writeback is actually pretty nasty
> from a microarchitectural standpoint.
On the same subject of relying on undocumented features:
/* If SMP and !X86_PPRO_FENCE. */
#define smp_rmb() barrier()
I've seen documentation, links posted to lkml ages ago, which implies
this is fine on 64-bit for both Intel and AMD.
But it appears to be relying on undocumented behaviour on 32-bit...
Are you sure it is ok? Has anyone from Intel/AMD ever confirmed it is
ok? Has it been tested? Clones?
-- Jamie
--
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