[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Memory Barrier Definitions
    On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 16:27, Alan Cox wrote:
    > 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 ?

    In terms of the MIPS{32|64} ISA, the current primitives seem fine;
    there's only 1 option defined in the ISA: 'sync'. Order for all
    off-cache accesses is guaranteed around a sync.

    It gets a bit more complicated when you talk about what particular
    implementations do, and ordering rules for uncached vs cached accesses,
    but to the best of my knowledge there aren't any fundamental problems as
    described for the PPC.


    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.022 / U:13.404 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site