Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] "lock cmpxch8b" and split locks

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nice try, but the first sentence of your quote applies only to ordinary 
(non-LOCKed) memory accesses. Section 7.1.2.2 states that "The 
integrity of a bus lock is not affected by the alignment of the memory 
field. The LOCK semantics are followed for as many bus cycles as 
necessary to update the entire operand."
I'm sure you get away with this in practise. 64-bit quantities are the 
only simple type that does not get naturally aligned in x86 C ABI. 
cmpxchg8b is a pretty rare instruction and most users would be very 
careful to ensure correct alignment in the cases it is used. Luckily it 
was easy for us to make the necessary changes too.
 -- Keir

On 6 Oct 2005, at 22:00, Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh wrote:

> I spoke to our hardware engineers about this. They pointed me at 
> Section
> 7.1.1 of Volume 3 of the Intel Software Developers Manual.
>
> "Accesses to cacheable memory that are split across bus widths, cache
> lines, and page boundaries are not guaranteed to be atomic by the
> Pentium 4, Intel Xeon, P6 family, Pentium, and Intel486 processors. The
> Pentium 4, Intel Xeon, and P6 family processors provide bus control
> signals that permit external memory subsystems to make split accesses
> atomic; however, on aligned data accesses will seriously impact the
> performance of the processor and should be avoided."
>
> I hope this gives you a better picture of the situation.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel