On Wednesday, March 08, 2006 7:45 pm, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> If we can have the following rules:
>
> * If you have stores to regular memory, followed by an MMIO store,
> and you want the device to see the stores to regular memory at the
> point where it receives the MMIO store, then you need a wmb() between
> the stores to regular memory and the MMIO store.
>
> * If you have PIO or MMIO accesses, and you need to ensure the
> PIO/MMIO accesses don't get reordered with respect to PIO/MMIO
> accesses on another CPU, put the accesses inside a spin-locked
> region, and put a mmiowb() between the last access and the
> spin_unlock.
>
> * smp_wmb() doesn't necessarily do any ordering of MMIO accesses
> vs. other accesses, and in that sense it is weaker than wmb().
This is a good set of rules. Hopefully David can add something like
this to his doc.
> ... then I can remove the sync from write*, which would be nice, and
> make mmiowb() be a sync. I wonder how long we're going to spend
> chasing driver bugs after that, though. :)
Hm, a static checker should be able to find this stuff, shouldn't it?
Jesse
-
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]
