![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > >On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Paul Mackerras wrote: > >>... and x86 mmiowb is a no-op. It's not x86 that I think is buggy. >> > >x86 mmiowb would have to be a real op too if there were any multi-pathed >PCI buses out there for x86, methinks. > >Basically, the issue boils down to one thing: no "normal" barrier will >_ever_ show up on the bus on x86 (ie ia64, afaik). That, together with any >situation where there are multiple paths to one physical device means that >mmiowb() _has_ to be a special op, and no spinlocks etc will _ever_ do the >serialization you look for. > >Put another way: the only way to avoid mmiowb() being special is either >one of: > (a) have the bus fabric itself be synchronizing > (b) pay a huge expense on the much more critical _regular_ barriers > >Now, I claim that (b) is just broken. I'd rather take the hit when I need >to, than every time. > I'm not very driver-minded; would it make sense to have io versions of locks, which can provide critical sections for IO operations? The number of (uncommented) memory barriers sprinkled around drivers looks pretty scary... -- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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: 2006-03-09 02:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||