lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] SMP alternatives
    Alan Cox wrote:
    > On Mer, 2005-11-23 at 13:36 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    >>>have to add PAT support which we need to do anyway we would get a world
    >>>where on uniprocessor lock prefix only works on addresse targets we want
    >>>it to - ie pci_alloc_consistent() pages.
    >>
    >>No. That would be wrong.
    >>
    >>The thing is, "lock" is useless EVEN ON SMP in user space 99% of the time.
    >
    >
    > Now I see what you are aiming at, yes that makes vast amounts of sense
    > and since AMD have the "no lock effect" bit for general case maybe they
    > can
    >

    What it really comes down to (virtualization or not!) is whether or not
    the OS can guarantee that nothing else is messing with memory at the
    same time.

    This is potentially different from process to process (because of page
    table differences) and from kernel to user space (because of the User
    bit in the page tables.)

    -hpa


    -
    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: 2005-11-23 23:26    [W:0.037 / U:149.524 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site