[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] Re: spin_unlock optimization(i386)
    Gerard wrote:
    > Even if the simple 'mov' may ensure other processors to have a
    > consistent view of the spinlock, it does not prevent the CPU that
    > unlocks from playing with speculative execution around the 'unlock'
    > and perform speculative reads for example. Without a minimal
    > serialization this stuff does not seem safe to me, or at least not for
    > ever.

    If local speculative reads are a problem, perhaps this would be faster
    than "lock; btrl $0,%0":

    "movl $0,%0" then rmb().

    The rmb() does a locked operation but no cross-CPU traffic on a PPro.
    Thus local reads and writes are fully serialised, and bus traffic is
    limited to the write which we believe is read correctly by other

    The rmb() can be a separate asm so that GCC can place some register
    operations in between if it's that clever (which it isn't, but it might
    be one day).

    OTOH, I don't see how speculative reads can be a problem. You're
    speculatively reading from /outside/ a locked region so anything goes.

    -- Jamie

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.020 / U:245.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site