[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] NVMe: Fix compilation on architecturs without readq/writeq
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Hitoshi Mitake <> wrote:
> I don't know about the minor architectures, but some of them,
> like alpha, seems to do reordering of memory access agressively.
> Is the reordering is applied to io rw?
> Should memory barriers be placed between two readl/writel?

No need to place barriers - the "readl/writel()" functions are ordered
in themselves. There are non-ordered versions in theory
("writel_relaxed()") for things like frame buffers etc that actively
want the ordering, but that's a separate issue entirely.

You do want to make sure that they aren't in the same C expression, so
that the compiler doesn't re-order the expression. IOW, if you just do

return (readl(addr+4) << 32) | readl(addr);

then that doesn't have any ordering at all simply because there is
none at the C level. But

u64 val;
val = readl(addr);
val |= readl(addr+4) << 32;

is well-defined and must read the low word first - both at the C level
*and* at the CPU level. Anything else would be a bug in the
architecture "readl()" implementation or the hardware.

(On x86, for example, a "readl()" is just a memory access, but while
x86 can re-order reads to regular memory in hardware, that is *not*
true of IO memory accesses. On architectures like POWER, 'readl()'
implies synchronization instructions)


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-31 04:07    [W:0.060 / U:3.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site