[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists
> 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

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 13:08    [W:0.107 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site