![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> It is discussed in the multi-procesor management section, under "memory > ordering", and it does say that "reads can be carried out specilatively > and in any order". > > HOWEVER, it does have what Intel calles "processor order", and it claims > that "writes by a single processor are observed in the same order by all > processors." The other thing on the intel side is that you have to read the errata documentation. There are an interesting collection of misordering errata. > (But Intel has redefined the memory ordering so many times that they might > redefine it in the future too and say that dependent loads are ok. I > suspect most of the definitions are of the type "Oh, it used to be ok in > the implementation even though it wasn't defined, and it turns out that > Windows doesn't work if we change it, so we'll define darkness to be the > new standard"..) Its notable that the folks who did looser ordering x86 clones had MTRRs to enable the performance boost Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||