Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

["Albert Cahalan" <acahalan@gmail.com>]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 11:08 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:

> > Ok, that's fine, though I think you'd only want the very weak
> > semantics (as provided by your __raw* routines) on write
> > combined memory typically?
>
> Well, that and memory with no side effects (like frame buffers)

Oh no, it's great for regular device driver work. I used this
type of system all the time on a different PowerPC OS.

Suppose you need to set up a piece of hardware. Assume that the
hardware isn't across some nasty bridge. You do this:

hw->x = 42;
hw->y = 19;
eieio();
hw->p = 11;
hw->q = 233;
hw->r = 87;
eieio()
hw->n = 101;
hw->m = 5;
eieio()

In that ficticious example, I get 7 writes to the hardware device
with only 3 "eieio" operations. It's not hard at all. Sometimes
a "sync" is used instead, also explicitly.

To get even more speed, you can mark memory as non-coherent.
You can even do this for RAM. There are cache control instructions
to take care of any problems; simply ask the CPU to write things
out as needed.

Linux should probably do this:

Plain stuff is like x86. If you want the performance of loose
ordering, ask for it when you get the mapping and use read/write
functions that have a "_" prefix. If you mix the "_" versions
with a plain x86-like mapping or the other way, the behavior you
get will be an arch-specific middle ground.
-
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/