Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:55:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #5]
In-Reply-To: <20060316231723.GB1323@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603161551000.3618@g5.osdl.org>
References: <16835.1141936162@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
 <18351.1142432599@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060316231723.GB1323@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1018
Lines: 24


On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> Also, I have some verbiage and diagrams of Alpha's operation at
> http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/scalability/paper/ordering.2006.03.13a.pdf
> Feel free to take any that helps.  (Source for paper is Latex and xfig,
> for whatever that is worth.)

This paper too claims that x86-64 has somehow different memory ordering 
constraints than regular x86. Do you actually have a source for that 
statement, or is it just a continuation of what looks like confusion in 
the Linux x86-64 header files?

(Also, x86 doesn't have an incoherent instruction cache - some older x86 
cores have an incoherent instruction decode _buffer_, but that's a 
slightly different issue with basically no effect on any sane program).

			Linus
-
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/