Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [RFC] [2.5 i386] GCC 3.1 -march support, PPRO_FENCE reduction, prefetch fixes and other CPU-related changes | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 05 Aug 2002 10:49:14 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 09:12, Luca Barbieri wrote: > So I'm only replacing the lock; addl $0,0(%%esp) with the Xfence > instructions which are more efficient.
The original code has rmb not doing any kind of CPU operation, and wmb likewise. (Quoting 2.4 and 2.5.29 here)
You don't need stronger barriers except on the Pentium Pro or the Winchip because of the guarantees already made by the processor and by the PCI interface.
The only case you need a store fence with non buggy/weird processors is when you do non temporal stores. In that situation the barriers are still not needed because the non temporal using functions already have their own sfence instructions and need them.
#define mb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)": :"memory") #define rmb() mb()
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE #define wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)": : :"memory") #else #define wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("": : :"memory") #endif
For the PPro a lock addl is the most efficient one I know of for working around the store order errata. If you want to optimise it further then the winchip appears to be fractionally faster using an rdmsr() but that impacts registers so wants more profiling
- 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/
| |