[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9302.1226100479@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:27:59 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> Yes. Do you think the synchronization of the cycles counters is
> _perfect_ across CPUs so that there is no possible way whatsoever that
> two cycle counter values appear to go backward between CPUs ? (also
> taking in account delays in __m_cnt_hi write-back...)
Given there's currently only one CPU allowed, yes, I think it's perfect:-)
It's something to re-evaluate should Panasonic decide to do SMP.
> If we expect the only correct use-case to be with readl(), I don't see
> the problem with added synchronization.
It might be expensive if you don't actually want to call readl(). But that's
on a par with using funky instructions to read the TSC, I guess.
David
--
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