lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RCU question
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, George Anzinger wrote:

> Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > >
> > The trick is the sti instruction: It enables interrupt processing after the
> > following instruction.
> >
> > Thus
> > sti
> > hlt
> >
> > cannot race - it atomically enables interrupts and waits.
>
> Exactly :)

Ok i wasn't aware that it was safe_halt() that he was referring too, my
poor assumption. But regardless, this seems highly fragile and relying on
behaviour which may change across processor models/vendors. I also found
the following excerpt from (http://sandpile.org/ia32/inter.htm) which you
may find interesting;

"Intel processors don't suppress SMI or NMI after an STI instruction.
Since the INTR suppresion is not preserved across an SMI or NMI handler,
this may result in an INTR being serviced after the STI, which constitutes
a violation of the INTR suppresion. Therefore, ideally the STI instruction
also suppresses SMI and NMI."

George thanks for persisting and explaining your point, i can be very slow
=)

Zwane
-
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 14:08    [W:0.077 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site