[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4F1840CA020000780006DB79@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:11:54 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: <mingo@...e.hu>, "eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <luca@...a-barbieri.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ix86: atomic64 assembly improvements
>>> On 19.01.12 at 15:59, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 01/19/2012 06:50 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> It doesn't have anything to do with caches on or off.
>>
>> How does it not? If any part of the bus topology is only 32 bits wide,
>> a 64-bit read or write simply can't be executed atomically without
>> asserting LOCK#.
>>
>
> Furthermore, if you're going down that rathole then we can't even trust
> MOV (nor, for that matter, can you trust LOCK in a lot of
No - (general register) MOV is at most 32 bits wide.
> circumstances.) In short, you need to be extremely careful about what
> you do to uncached memory *at all* (and you need to know exactly what is
> behind this bus) but pessimizing these kinds of construct for that
> reason is wrong in the extreme.
Okay, despite not being fully convinced I'll undo the folding of set and
xchg then, and re-submit.
Jan
--
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