[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyrctX5UH7Y+0731Tmb-HzjxxFt-c2cv-4iG9aCZPmsaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:04:33 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, kafai@...com,
kernel-team@...com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] netlink: Replace rhash_portid with bound
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> wrote:
>
> http://download.intel.com/design/archives/processors/pro/docs/24268935.pdf
>
> Says "NoFix" for erratas 66 and 92.
Yeah, 66 and 92 do look like they could cause the apparent ordering of
accesses to be violated. That said, both of them <i>seem</i> to be
"processor had exclusive access to line A, and gave it away but ended
up still reading now-stale data".
And that's not what we use "smp_wmb()" or "smp_rmb()" to protect
against. If we did a write and then wanted to do an ordered read, we'd
use smp_mb(), which always does that barrier.
So I don't know whether either of those really merit our PPRO
workaround. Cache coherency is hard.
There's also errata 41, which looks like it would be a bad situation.
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists