lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1 / ...] i386 dynamic fixup/self modifying code
Luca Barbieri writes:
> > I've tried this sort of thing before (unsynchronised cross-modifying code),
> > but I had to abandon it due to Pentium III Erratum E49 and similar errata
> > for all Intel P6 CPUs. Have you verified that you're not hitting this erratum?
> It is indeed completely hitting it.
> However, we can work around this by simply stopping all other CPUs in
> interrupt context with an IPI (while this may sound horrible, it
> shouldn't significantly impact performance unless the response time is
> excessively long).

That was my thought too. IPI to bring the others to a barrier, do the
modification, release the barrier.

In my case (patching CALL instructions to call the correct targets
after HW detection) I was fortunately able to fix up the code before
it was seen by other CPUs, but this relied on the fact that I knew
the locations of all CALL sites needing fix up.

> I'll write some code to this. However I don't have the hardware to test
> it, so it might require multiple iterations to get it right.
>
> As for the "all Intel P6 CPUs" are really _all_ Intel P6 CPU broken?

Yes, last time I checked the erratum existed for all members of
Intel's P6 family.

> Do you know of any other CPU that would need the workaround?

No. The P5 is ok, and I believe the P4 is also. The K7s didn't have
this listed as an erratum last time I checked.

/Mikael
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.036 / U:1.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site