Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753373AbXIHUiR (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 16:38:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751851AbXIHUiF (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 16:38:05 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:60114 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751646AbXIHUiE (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 16:38:04 -0400 Message-ID: <46E3080E.9060403@zytor.com> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:37:34 -0500 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Jesse Barnes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel Memory Ordering White Paper References: <200709071526.51169.jesse.barnes@intel.com> <200709080557.36021.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <200709081219.43662.ak@suse.de> <200709080632.05389.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200709080632.05389.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 727 Lines: 18 Nick Piggin wrote: > smp_rmb() should not need to do anything because loads are done > in order anyway. Both AMD and Intel have committed to this now. > > The important point is that they *appear* to be done in order. AFAIK, > the CPUs can still do speculative and out of order loads, but throw > out the results if they could be wrong. Is there anything even semiofficial from VIA? Not that the x86 architecture isn't pretty much definable as the AMD-Intel consensus... -hpa - 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/