lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety
Linus Torvalds writes:

> PPC has an absolutely _horrible_ memory ordering implementation, as far as
> I can tell. The thing is broken. I think it's just implementation
> breakage, not anything really fundamental, but the fact that their write
> barriers are expensive is a big sign that they are doing something bad.

An smp_wmb() is just an eieio on PPC, which is pretty cheap. I made
wmb() be a sync though, because it seemed that there were drivers that
expected wmb() to provide an ordering between a write to memory and a
write to an MMIO register. If that is a bogus assumption then we
could make wmb() lighter-weight (after auditing all the drivers we're
interested in, of course, ...).

And in a subsequent message:

> If so, a simple write barrier should be sufficient. That's exactly what
> the x86 write barriers do too, ie stores to magic IO space are _not_
> ordered wrt a normal [smp_]wmb() (or, as per how this thread started, a
> spin_unlock()) at all.

By magic IO space, do you mean just any old memory-mapped device
register in a PCI device, or do you mean something else?

Paul.
-
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: 2006-03-04 12:00    [W:0.117 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site