On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > What I suggested to Intel at the Developer Days is to have a MSR (or, better > > yet, a bit in the page table pointer %cr0) that disables "lock" in _user_ > > space. Ie a lock would be a no-op when in CPL3, and only with certain > > processes. > > You mean %cr3, right? Yes. It _should_ be fairly easy to do something like that - just a simple global flag that gets set and makes CPL3 ignore lock prefixes. Even timing doesn't matter - it it takes a hundred cycles for the setting to take effect, we don't care, since you can't write %cr3 from user space anyway, and it will certainly take a hundred cycles (and a few serializing instructions) until we get to CPL3. I'd personally prefer it to be in %cr3, since we'd have to reload it on task switching, and that's one of the registers we load anyway. And it would make sense. But it could be in an MSR too. Of course, if it's in one of the low 12 bits of %cr3, there would have to be a "enable this bit" in %cr4 or something. Historically, you could write any crap in the low bits, I think. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Mikulas Patocka <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
- From: Gerd Knorr <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
- From: Gerd Knorr <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
- From: Gerd Knorr <[email protected]>
- [RFC] SMP alternatives
- From: Gerd Knorr <[email protected]>
- [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Gerd Knorr <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
- Prev by Date: Re: + dont-include-schedh-from-moduleh.patch added to -mm tree
- Next by Date: [PATCH] powerpc: Add support for building uImages
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
- Index(es):