On Friday 07 September 2007 20:13:12 Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sunday 09 September 2007 03:48, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > There is some suggestion in the source code that non-temporal stores
> > (movntq) are weakly ordered. But AFAIKS from the documents, it is ordered
> > when operating on wb memory. What's the situation there?
>
> Sorry, it looks from the AMD document like nontemporal stores to wb
> memory can go out of order.
Yes, that is how NT stores are defined.
> If this is the case, we can either retain the sfence in smp_wmb(), or noop
> it, and put explicit sfences around any place that performs nontemporal
> stores...
We do this already, but in most cases it doesn't matter anyways. We AFAIK
do not rely on any ordering for copy_*_user for example. There are not
that many users of nt so it's not a huge issue.
>
> Anyway, the lfence should be able to go away without so much trouble.
You mean sfence? lfence in rmb is definitely needed.
sfence on x86-64 is not strictly needed, but also shouldn't hurt very much
so I always kept it in.
-Andi
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
