Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266333AbUJEXQ7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:16:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266324AbUJEXQe (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:16:34 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:5354 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266333AbUJEXJf (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:09:35 -0400 From: Jesse Barnes To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] I/O space write barrier Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:09:23 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 Cc: Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel mailing list References: <1096922369.2666.177.camel@cube> <200410050833.49654.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <1097016099.27222.14.camel@gaston> In-Reply-To: <1097016099.27222.14.camel@gaston> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410051609.23479.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1595 Lines: 39 On Tuesday, October 5, 2004 3:41 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 01:33, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > This macro is only supposed to deal with writes from different CPUs that > > may arrive out of order, nothing else. It sounds like PPC won't allow > > that normally, so I can be an empty definition. > > I don't understand that neither. You can never guarantee any ordering > between writes from different CPUs unless you have a sinlock. If you > have an ordering problem with spinlocks, then it's a totally different > issue, a bit more like MMIO vs. cacheable mem that we have on PPC. Right. > If > this is the problem you are trying to chase, then we could use such a > barrier on ppc too and make it a hard sync, but it has nothing to do > with the write barrier we already have in our IO accessors... Ok. > > > > That doesn't solve my need of MMIO vs. memory unless you are trying to > > > cover that as well, in which case it should be a sync. > > > > No, I think that has to be covered separately. > > How so ? Again, this whole "ordering of writes between different CPU" makes > absolutely no sense to me. It's like you said above. I meant that ordering of writes to I/O space and memory space should be dealt with differently on PPC, as you've said before. I guess you need new barrier types for that? Jesse - 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/