This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Support for Intel X1000
- From: "Kinsella, Ray" <ray dot kinsella at intel dot com>
- To: "dalias at libc dot org" <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: "carlos at redhat dot com" <carlos at redhat dot com>, "fweimer at redhat dot com" <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:45:37 +0000
- Subject: Re: Support for Intel X1000
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1431426490 dot 3246 dot 29 dot camel at intel dot com> <5552104C dot 1020806 at redhat dot com> <20150512152207 dot GW17573 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 15:22 +0000, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 05/12/2015 12:28 PM, Kinsella, Ray wrote:
> >
> Not only that, but the code would not be working. In the kernel,
> defining UP and disabling lock prefix is sufficient because the kernel
> controls scheduling and interrupt masking and therefore doesn't need
> atomics except for synchronizing with other physical cores.
>
The X1000 with the bug is only available in a UP configuration (single
core, single socket), so there is no other physical cores to synchronize
with. Granted a glibc build targeting a UP environment like this, would
immediately break on a multi-core/socket system.
Ray K