lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors
From
Date
On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 16:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> So the non-relaxed ops already imply the expensive I/O barrier (mmiowb?)
> and therefore, PPC can drop it from spin_unlock()?

We play a trick. We set a per-cpu flag in writeX and test it in unlock
before doing the barrier. Still better than having the barrier in every
MMIO at this stage for us.

Whether we want to change that with then new scheme ... we'll see.

> Also, I read mmiowb() as MMIO-write-barrier(), what do we have to
> order/contain mmio-reads?
>
> I have _0_ experience with MMIO, so I've no idea if ordering/containing
> reads is silly or not.

I will review the rest when I'm back from vacation (or maybe this
week-end).

Thanks Will for picking that up, it's long overdue :)

Cheers,
Ben.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-18 00:21    [W:0.241 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site