[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070504232451.GA15433@lixom.net>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 18:24:51 -0500
From: olof@...om.net (Olof Johansson)
To: Linas Vepstas <linas@...tin.ibm.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jgarzik@...ox.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gianfar: Add I/O barriers when touching buffer descriptor ownership.
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:13:09PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:40:20PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> > Well, Segher doesn't want me to use iobarrier (because it's not I/O).
> > Andy doesn't want me to use wmb() (because it's sync). I don't think
> > something like gfar_wmb() would be appropriate. So the remaining
> > options are either eieio(),
>
> ? Just curious... the original intent of eieio was to order I/O,
> such as MMIO; it has no effect on memory that isn't marked
> cache-inhibited or write-trhough or guarded. Has this changed?
> I guess I haven't kept up with the times ... is eieio now
> being used to provide some other kind of barrier?
> Is eieio providing some sort of SMP synchronization side-effect?
>
> Point being: if Segher doesn't let you "use iobarrier (because
> it's not I/O)", then I don't understand why eieio would work (since
> that's for io only).
Eieio has always worked for regular cachable memory as well, it just never
orders _between_ cache inhibited/guarded and cachable memory.
Book II 2.03 has a pretty good description of it on page 367.
-Olof
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists