Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #2]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Linus Torvalds wrote:


On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Paul Mackerras wrote:

... and x86 mmiowb is a no-op.  It's not x86 that I think is buggy.


x86 mmiowb would have to be a real op too if there were any multi-pathed PCI buses out there for x86, methinks.

Basically, the issue boils down to one thing: no "normal" barrier will _ever_ show up on the bus on x86 (ie ia64, afaik). That, together with any situation where there are multiple paths to one physical device means that mmiowb() _has_ to be a special op, and no spinlocks etc will _ever_ do the serialization you look for.

Put another way: the only way to avoid mmiowb() being special is either one of:
(a) have the bus fabric itself be synchronizing
(b) pay a huge expense on the much more critical _regular_ barriers

Now, I claim that (b) is just broken. I'd rather take the hit when I need to, than every time.

I'm not very driver-minded; would it make sense to have io versions of
locks, which can provide critical sections for IO operations?

The number of (uncommented) memory barriers sprinkled around drivers
looks pretty scary...

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -
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]
  Powered by Linux