On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> > That's what IRIX had. It would let us get rid of mmiowb and avoid doing
> > a full sync in writeX, so may be the best option.
>
> Last time I suggested that, people did not want it.
I would personally _much_ rather have a separate mmiowb() and a regular
spinlock, than add a magic new spinlock.
Of course, mmiowb() itself is not a great name, and we could/should
probably rename it to make it more obvious what the hell it is.
> There is one little problem in practice with something
> like spin_unlock_io().
>
> spin_lock_io(&lock);
> foovalue = new_foovalue;
> if (device_is_fooing)
> writel(foovalue, REGISTER);
> spin_unlock_io(&lock);
>
> That would be an unneccessary sync in case device is not fooing.
> In contrast to the explicit version:
>
> spin_lock(&lock);
> foovalue = new_foovalue;
> if (device_is_fooing) {
> writel(foovalue, REGISTER);
> mmiowb();
> }
> spin_unlock(&lock);
I think this is even more important when the actual IO is done somewhere
totally different from the locking. It's really confusing if you have a
"spin_unlock_io()" just because some routine you called wanted it.
But more importantly, I don't want to have "spin_unlock_io[_xyzzy]()",
where "xyzzy()" is all the irq/irqrestore/bh variations. It's just not
worth it. We already have enough variations on spinlocks, but at least
right now they are all in the "same category", ie it's all about what the
context of the _locking_ is, and at least the lock matches the unlock, and
there are no separate rules.
Linus
-
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]
