On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 05:43 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 25 February 2006 05:20, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> > On some platforms, a regular wmb() is not sufficient to guarantee that
> > PCI writes have been flushed to the bus if write combining is in effect.
>
> On what platforms?
On x86_64 in particular, if CONFIG_UNORDERED_IO is defined. Regular
wmb() is implemented as a compiler memory barrier then, which isn't
sufficient for PCI write combining.
> linux/system.h looks unnatural to me.
I used this for symmetry with <asm/system.h> where other barriers are
defined. It could obviously go into io.h instead, since it's an
MMIO-related barrier, but I didn't want to separate it from other
barriers.
If you have a location you'd prefer, please let me know.
> > We also define a version of wc_wmb() with the required semantics
> > on x86_64.
>
> Leaving i386 out in the cold?
Looks like it should be defined there, too, something like this perhaps:
#define wc_wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM)
Does that look right?
<b
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
