[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Q] Implementation of spin_lock on i386: why "rep;nop" ?
    On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Dave Jones wrote:

    > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Jean-Marc Saffroy wrote:
    > > What is the intent behind this "rep;nop" ? Does it really rely on an
    > > undocumented behaviour ?
    > Its used to stop Pentium 4's from cooking themselves.
    > See the P4 manuals for more info.

    Ok, I found it: actually it is the PAUSE opcode in the P4 instruction set,
    and the doc for PAUSE mentions that it is equivalent to a NOP on older
    IA-32 processors.

    So no black magic here, except that "rep;nop" is a bit misleading, since
    the Intel docs for REP and NOP do not mention PAUSE...

    Thanks all for you help.


    Jean-Marc Saffroy - Research Engineer - Silicomp Research Institute

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.048 / U:2.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site