[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac9634cf8e054380acd13178743019d4@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:03:15 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Andy Lutomirski' <luto@...nel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
kernel parameter
From: Andy Lutomirski
> Sent: 16 December 2019 18:06
..
> This whole discussion is about the fact that PeterZ is sceptical that
> actual x86 CPUs have as strong a memory model as the SDM suggests, and
> I'm trying to understand the exact concern. This may or may not be
> directly relevant to the kernel. :)
The x86 memory model is pretty strong.
It has to be to support historic code - including self modifying code.
I think DOS from 1982 should still boot.
Even for SMP they probably can't relax anything from the original implementations.
(Except cpu specific kernel bits - since that has all changed since some dual 486 boxes.)
Actually the weakest x86 memory model was that defined in some P-pro
era Intel docs that said that IOR/IOW weren't sequenced with memory accesses.
Fortunately no cpu ever did that reordering, and now it isn't allowed.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists