[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1211516683.8297.271.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 00:24:43 -0400
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: scottwood@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
tpiepho@...escale.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 15:53 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:43:58 -0500
>
> > David Miller wrote:
> > > The __volatile__ in the asm construct disallows movement of the
> > > inline asm relative to statements surrounding it.
> > >
> > > The only reason barrier() in kernel.h needs a memory clobber is
> > > because of a bug in ancient versions of gcc. In fact, I think
> > > that memory clobber might even be removable.
> >
> > Current versions of GCC seem quite happy to move non-asm memory accesses
> > around a volatile asm without a memory clobber; see the test Trent posted.
>
> Indeed, and even the GCC manual is clear about this.
So what is the scope of that problem ?
IE. Take an x86 version of that test, writing to memory, doing a writel
to some MMIO, then another memory write, can those be re-ordered with
the current x86 version of writel ?
static inline void writel(unsigned int b, volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
*(volatile unsigned int __force *)addr = b;
}
This is becoming a serious issue...
Ben.
--
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