Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:09:52 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Oeser <> | Subject | Re: (*(unsigned long *)&jiffies)++; |
| |
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Petko Manolov wrote: > > AFAIK incl _lock_ the bus even without "lock" in fornt of the > > instruction > > on 386 machine. Or at least i386 instruction set manual say so. > > But there is no word about all this in the newest manual i got from > > Intel. Is this changed on i[56]86? > > The section 7.1.2.1 (of Intel PIII, Volume III) says that automatic > LOCK-ing is done: > > * When executing an XCHG instruction that references memory.
ok, but what about the whole family. So i[345]86 and P II, too? Are any buggy mask revisions known, that break this assumption?
Would be nice instruction for binary semaphores ;) For other things it doesn't reduce any costs :(
> I know we all can read and cut'n'paste but sometimes it is nice to find > useful facts in a single email message :)
Agree ;) <Put in persistent archive...>
Regards
Ingo Oeser -- Feel the power of the penguin - run linux@your.pc <esc>:x
- 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/
| |