On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Petko Manolov wrote:
> > AFAIK incl _lock_ the bus even without "lock" in fornt of the
> > instruction
> > on 386 machine. Or at least i386 instruction set manual say so.
> > But there is no word about all this in the newest manual i got from
> > Intel. Is this changed on i[56]86?
>
> The section 7.1.2.1 (of Intel PIII, Volume III) says that automatic
> LOCK-ing is done:
>
> * When executing an XCHG instruction that references memory.
ok, but what about the whole family. So i[345]86 and P II, too?
Are any buggy mask revisions known, that break this assumption?
Would be nice instruction for binary semaphores ;) For other
things it doesn't reduce any costs :(
> I know we all can read and cut'n'paste but sometimes it is nice to find
> useful facts in a single email message :)
Agree ;) <Put in persistent archive...>
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-- Feel the power of the penguin - run linux@your.pc <esc>:x- 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 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:17 EST