lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
Date
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 17:23, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> Hi, Andi -
>
> I notice that wmb() is a no-op

Actually it is a compiler optimizer barrier, not a no-op.

> on x86_64 kernels unless
> CONFIG_UNORDERED_IO is set.

Because x86 is architecturally defined as having ordered writes (unless you use
write combining or non temporal stores which normal kernel code doesn't). So it's
not needed.

> Is there any particular reason for this?
> It's not similarly conditional on other platforms, and as a consequence,
> in our driver (which requires a write barrier in some situations for
> correctness), I have to add the following piece of ugliness:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && !defined(CONFIG_UNORDERED_IO)
> #define ipath_wmb() asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
> #else
> #define ipath_wmb() wmb()
> #endif

Hmm, I suppose one could add a wc_wmb() or somesuch, but WC
is currently deeply architecture specific so I'm not sure
how you can even use it portably.

Why do you need the barrier?

-Andi
-
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: 2006-01-18 17:32    [W:1.429 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site