linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140120092931.GA3836@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:29:31 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> On 01/20/2014 01:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >> The difference is the STI!
> > 
> > So do the local_irq_enable(); mwait_idle_with_hints(0,0); thing.
> > 
> 
> No, that doesn't work.  The point of __sti_mwait() is that the STI 
> is the instruction immediately before the MWAIT, just like the 
> combination STI;HLT.  Since the execution of STI is always delayed 
> by one instruction, these two instructions form an atomic unit, 
> which means interrupts are enabled "after" we have entered MWAIT or 
> HLT.
> 
> > But that's entirely different from saying that core2 doesn't 
> > support mwait_idle_with_hints because its a different instruction.
> 
> If you think of STI;MWAIT as a "compound instruction" it kind of is. 
> Newer CPUs don't have to play that trick anymore, because there is a 
> flag to MWAIT which breaks us out of MWAIT on a pending interrupt 
> without having to actually enable interrupts at the point of the 
> MWAIT.

As a side note, at minimum the semantic and compatibility difference 
needs to be _very_ clearly present in the naming. Something like 
mwait_old_() or mwait_core2_(). That way such dependencies and 
assumptions don't get lost in code restructuring, etc.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/