Re: On trying to drop X86_PPRO_FENCE..

2014-03-11 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> (Although honestly, that whole thing is so long ago that my "dim > memory" is very suspect, and it's possible the workaround actually > came independently of that from Alan Cox. This all happened in > v2.4.13-rc2 - late 2001 - and the PPro workaround came in together > with the X86 OOSTORE code,

On trying to drop X86_PPRO_FENCE..

2014-03-11 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > But ... when PPro was common our parallelization sucked, so I'd not be > surprised if it triggered more frequently with a modern kernel. Agreed. It is certainly very possible that we had no reports of this simply because we never had any

On trying to drop X86_PPRO_FENCE..

2014-03-11 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote: But ... when PPro was common our parallelization sucked, so I'd not be surprised if it triggered more frequently with a modern kernel. Agreed. It is certainly very possible that we had no reports of this simply because we

Re: On trying to drop X86_PPRO_FENCE..

2014-03-11 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
(Although honestly, that whole thing is so long ago that my dim memory is very suspect, and it's possible the workaround actually came independently of that from Alan Cox. This all happened in v2.4.13-rc2 - late 2001 - and the PPro workaround came in together with the X86 OOSTORE code, which