Re: LOCK prefix on uni processor has its use

[Harald Welte]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 08:08:27PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > * All X86 instructions except rep-strings are atomic wrt interrupts.
> > * The lock prefix has uses on a UP processor: It keeps DMA devices from
> >   interfering with a read-modify-write sequence
> 
> In theory yes, but not in Linux -- normal drivers simply don't use LOCK in
> any way on a UP kernel.

well, they might have inadvertedly used LOCK as part of regular spinlocks,
until LOCK_PREFIX was removed, right?

> > Now the question is: Is this a valid operation of a driver?  Should the driver
> > do such things, or is such a driver broken? 
> 
> The driver is broken because if it relies on this it will not work on a UP kernel.
> Also it's not portable and in general a bad idea.

I agree.  I was not referring to any real/known driver.  I was just trying to
figure out what kind of problem the VIA/Centaur CPU guys tried to describe when
indicating that the LOCK prefix should be used on UP to avoid DMA interfering
with read-modify-write CPU instructions.

-- 
- Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@xxxxxxxxxxx>	    http://linux.via.com.tw/
============================================================================
VIA Free and Open Source Software Liaison
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/