[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200609111112.29403.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:12:29 -0700
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
paulus@...ba.org, torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
On Sunday, September 10, 2006 5:54 pm, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> - writel/readl become totally ordered (including vs. memory).
> >> Basically x86-like. Expensive (very expensive even on some
> >> architectures) but also very safe.
> >
> > This approach will minimize driver changes, and would imply the
> > removal
> > of some existing mmiowb() and wmb() macros.
>
> Like I tried to explain already, in my competing approach, no drivers
> would need changes either. And you could remove those macro's (or
> their more-verbosely-saying-what-their-doing, preferably bus-specific
> as well) as well -- but you'll face the wrath of those who care about
> performance of those drivers on non-x86 platforms.
Right, at the cost of more complexity in the accessor routines.
> Hence my proposal of calling it pci_cpu_to_cpu_barrier() -- what it
> orders is accesses from separate CPUs. Oh, and it's bus-specific,
> of course.
Makes sense to me, I have no problem with that name since it's really intended
to order posted PCI writes from different CPUs.
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists