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

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

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 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/