Re: LFENCE instruction

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > 
> > PREFETCH* doesn't change program semantics. The processor is allowed to
> > ignore prefetch instruction if it doesn't have resources needed for
> > prefetch. It not ordered wrt. fences.
> > 
> > PREFETCHNTA was implemented as prefetch into L1 cache and omitting L2 cache
> > on Pentium 3 and M --- and it is implemented as prefetch into L2 cache on
> > other --- do it doesn't really use any special buffers.
> > 
> 
> It's semantics allows it to, though.  It's not clear to me whether it is
> actually necessary on existing chips.
> 
> It does, I believe, way-restricted prefetch on existing silicon.

It is allowed to use special buffers for prefetch, but --- because 
prefetch doesn't change program semantics, these special buffers must be 
kept consistent just like caches --- they must be snooped for bus 
transactions and they must be checked each time something writes to cache.

So I doubt anyone will ever implement it this way --- it's too much 
silicon for too little effect.

Mikulas

> 	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/