lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Pentium DEATH in user-mode
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Andre Derrick Balsa wrote:

> Setting the NO_LOCK bit in CCR1 will prevent the deadlock caused by the
> above code sequence. Here is a short call to set6x86 that does this:
>
> set6x86 -p 0xc1 -s 0x10.
>
> Page table accesses and interrupt acknowledge cycles will still be
> executed in locked cycles, but the xchgl instruction will *not* generate
> locked cycles anymore.
>
> I don't know if setting the NO_LOCK bit will cause problems when running
> Linux. I don't think so...

It doesn't. I don't think explicit locks can be relied on to be
visible to anything that isn't sitting directly on the memory/CPU
bus. The only time Linux cares whether explicit locks are honoured
or not is when they are used to synchronize SMP systems. As far as
I know there isn't yet a Cyrix based SMP design available.

Mike

--
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk |
| Roan Technology Ltd. | |
| 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
| RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.072 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site