On 06/25/2007 06:34 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 June 2007 00:05:17 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> On 06/25/2007 05:38 PM, Loic Prylli wrote:
>>
>> [cc: Andi]
>>
>>> Processors synchronization in set_mtrr requires the .gate field
>>> to be set after .count field is properly initialized. Without an
On 6/25/2007 6:34 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 June 2007 00:05:17 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
>> On 06/25/2007 05:38 PM, Loic Prylli wrote:
>>
>> [cc: Andi]
>>
>>
>>> Processors synchronization in set_mtrr requires the .gate field
>>> to be set after .count field is properly initialized.
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 00:05:17 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/25/2007 05:38 PM, Loic Prylli wrote:
>
> [cc: Andi]
>
> > Processors synchronization in set_mtrr requires the .gate field
> > to be set after .count field is properly initialized. Without an explicit
> > barrier, the compiler was reorde
On 06/25/2007 05:38 PM, Loic Prylli wrote:
[cc: Andi]
> Processors synchronization in set_mtrr requires the .gate field
> to be set after .count field is properly initialized. Without an explicit
> barrier, the compiler was reordering those memory stores. That was sometimes
> causing a processor
Processors synchronization in set_mtrr requires the .gate field
to be set after .count field is properly initialized. Without an explicit
barrier, the compiler was reordering those memory stores. That was sometimes
causing a processor (in ipi_handler) to see the .gate change and
decrement .count be
5 matches
Mail list logo