Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:43:13 +0100 | | From | Jamie Lokier <> | | Subject | Re: AVL trees vs. Red-Black trees |
| |
Thank you for an informative summary.
Manfred Spraul wrote: > 5) if the CPU sees a "lock;", "xchg", "in", "out" or any serializing > instruction, then it reevaluates all speculative reads that the cpu > has made.
I noticed Andrea Arcangeli repeatedly pointing out the difference between atomicity and serialisation, and that "lock;" guarantees atomicity not serialisation. Yet here you suggest that "any serializing instruction" includes the atomic ones. What am I misunderstanding?
And the that matter, whch instructions are serialising in this way? Is "sfence" serialising? What about a far jump? (Far jump serialises the execution unit in as much as you need one to switch between real & protected modes, for example, but I don't think it serialises memory accesses).
And of course, are the rules for non-Intel "x86 compatible" processors just as strong?
thanks, -- Jamie
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |