[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190425114137.GO4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:41:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@...utronix.de>,
'Fenghua Yu' <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
Christopherson Sean J <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 13/15] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
default
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:13:23AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> I'm not at all sure that 'compare and exchange' operations
> are atomic on all cpus if the data is misaligned and crosses
> a page boundary and either (or both) pages need faulting in
> (or hit a TLB miss).
Most sane architectures already trap if you attempt that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists