Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesse Barnes <> | Subject | Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM | Date | Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:19:11 -0700 |
| |
On Saturday, September 09, 2006 8:09 am, Alan Cox wrote: > Ar Sad, 2006-09-09 am 17:23 +1000, ysgrifennodd Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > > The problem is that very few people have any clear idea of what > > mmiowb is :) In fact, what you described is not the definition of > > mmiowb according to Jesse > > Some of us talked a little about this at Linux Kongress and one > suggestion so people did understand it was > > spin_lock_io(); > spin_unlock_io(); > > so that it can be expressed not as a weird barrier op but as part of > the locking.
That's what IRIX had. It would let us get rid of mmiowb and avoid doing a full sync in writeX, so may be the best option.
Jesse - 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/
| |