lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Memory Barrier Definitions
Date
From
> forms of processor memory barrier instructions.  It is _very_ expensive
> to blindly force all memory references to be ordered completely to the
> seperate spaces. The use of wmb(), rmb(), and mb() is overloaded in the
> context of PowerPC.

I think I follow

You have

Compiler ordering
CPU v CPU memory ordering
CPU v I/O memory ordering
I/O v I/O memory ordering

and our current heirarchy is a little bit more squashed than that. I'd
agree. We actually hit a corner case of this on the IDT winchip x86 where
we run relaxed store ordering and have to define wmb() as a locked add of
zero to the top of stack - which does have a penalty that isnt needed
for CPU ordering.

How much of this impacts Mips64 ?

Alan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site