[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805271451100.2958@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
scottwood@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tpiepho@...escale.com
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> A problem with __raw_ though is that they -also- don't do byteswap,
Well, that's why there is __readl() and __raw_readl(), no?
Neither does ordering, and __raw_readl() doesn't do byte-swap.
Of course, I'm not going to guarantee every architecture even has all
those versions, nor am I going to guarantee they all work as advertised :)
For x86, they have historially all been 100% identical. With the inline
asm patch I posted, the "__" version (whether "raw" or not) lack the
"memory" barrier, so they allow a *little* bit more re-ordering.
(They won't be re-ordered wrt spinlocks etc, unless gcc starts reordering
volatile asm's against each other, which would be a bug).
In practice, I doubt it matters. Whatever small compiler re-ordering it
might affect won't have any real performance impack one way or the other,
I think.
Linus
--
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