On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
>
> Dual PPro stepping 1 here. I was just finishing my ``success report'' as the
> program locked up :(
Good. Not because I like the result, but because this finally puts the
thing to rest with not a shadow of a doubt. Andy Glew (and - modesty fails
me again - I) was right. The only really universally safe unlock is indeed
one that is atomic.
However, I still think it would be fine to make this a config option,
because obviously newer PPro (and all PII) cores will do the unlock
correctly and much faster with the simple store.
The question is really only how the config option should be presented to
the user (a "generic" kernel would obviously have the CONFIG_SLOW_UNLOCK
thing enabled, but should be for example just split the "PPro" config
entry into "PPro" and "PII", and then for "PPro" have a furter "Slow but
safe" option?)
I think the "PPro" vs "PII/PIII" case would be nice - then people with
newer CPU's would never even see the "is your CPU broken"? question.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST