netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:56:54 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> But I got google to find it for me by looking for "__raw_writeo", so I
> can see the patch now. It looks like it might work. Does it really
> help performance despite always doing those TS games in CR0 for each
> access?

Btw, are we even certain that a 128-bit PCIe write is going to remain
atomic across a bus (ie over various PCIe bridges etc)? Do you you
care? Is it just a "one transaction is cheaper than two", and it
doesn't really have any ordering constraints? If the thing gets split
into two 64-bit transactions (in whatever order) by a bridge on the
way, would that be ok?

We've seen buses split accesses before (ie 64-bit writes on 32-bit PCI).

                     Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html