Re: P6 NOPs again: MPSC?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Monday, March 10, 2008 - 11:43 pm

Hugh Dickins wrote:

No.  The left-hand clause (X86_64 || !X86_GENERIC) indicates when using 
these NOPs are *permitted*; the right-hand clause indicates when doing 
so is *desirable*.  The latter isn't, for example, for K8, even on 64 bits.

	-hpa

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] x86: a P4 is a P6 not an i486, Hugh Dickins, (Tue Mar 4, 12:33 pm)
Re: [PATCH] x86: a P4 is a P6 not an i486, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Mar 4, 2:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] x86: a P4 is a P6 not an i486, H. Peter Anvin, (Tue Mar 4, 2:24 pm)
Re: [PATCH] x86: a P4 is a P6 not an i486, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Mar 4, 2:32 pm)
P6 NOPs again: MPSC?, Hugh Dickins, (Mon Mar 10, 12:14 pm)
Re: P6 NOPs again: MPSC?, H. Peter Anvin, (Mon Mar 10, 1:17 pm)
Re: P6 NOPs again: MPSC?, Hugh Dickins, (Mon Mar 10, 3:02 pm)
Re: P6 NOPs again: MPSC?, H. Peter Anvin, (Mon Mar 10, 11:43 pm)
Re: P6 NOPs again: MPSC?, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Mar 11, 2:28 am)
Re: P6 NOPs again: MPSC?, Hugh Dickins, (Tue Mar 11, 6:45 am)
Re: P6 NOPs again: MPSC?, Hugh Dickins, (Tue Mar 11, 7:00 am)