[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806031253180.3242@t2.domain.actdsltmp>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...escale.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
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
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:47:00AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Linus: on x86, memory operations to wc and wc+ memory are not ordered
>>>> with one another, or operations to other memory types (ie. load/load
>>>> and store/store reordering is allowed). Also, as you know, store/load
>>>> reordering is explicitly allowed as well, which covers all memory
>>>> types. So perhaps it is not quite true to say readl/writel is strongly
>>>> ordered by default even on x86. You would have to put in some
>>>> mfence instructions in them to make it so.
>>
>> So on x86, these could be re-ordered?
>>
>> writel(START_OPERATION, CONTROL_REGISTER);
>> status = readl(STATUS_REGISTER);
>
> You wouldn't ask for write-combining memory mapping for control or
> status registers.
But Nick said, "store/load reordering is explicitly allowed as well, which
covers *all* memory types."
--
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