Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756493Ab1DGSbo (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:31:44 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52574 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754793Ab1DGSbn (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:31:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110407181523.GC21838@one.firstfloor.org> References: <80b43d57d15f7b141799a7634274ee3bfe5a5855.1302137785.git.luto@mit.edu> <20110407164245.GA21838@one.firstfloor.org> <20110407181523.GC21838@one.firstfloor.org> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:30:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFT/PATCH v2 2/6] x86-64: Optimize vread_tsc's barriers To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andy Lutomirski , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 718 Lines: 18 On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I would prefer to be safe than sorry. There's a difference between "safe" and "making up theoretical arguments for the sake of an argument". If Intel _documented_ the "barriers on each side", I think you'd have a point. As it is, we're not doing the "safe" thing, we're doing the "extra crap that costs us and nobody has ever shown is actually worth it". 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/