On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:30:32AM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
quoted text
> > > You already must not place any data structures into WC memory --- for 
> > > example, spinlocks wouldn't work there.
> > 
> > What do you mean "already"?
> 
> I mean "in current kernel" (I checked it in 2.6.22)

Ahh, that's not "current kernel", though ;)

4071c718555d955a35e9651f77086096ad87d498

 
quoted text
> > If we already have drivers loading data from
> > WC memory, then rmb() needs to order them, whether or not they actually
> > need it. If that were prohibitively costly, then we'd introduce a new
> > barrier which does not order WC memory, right?
> > 
> > 
> > > wmb() also won't work on WC 
> > > memory, because it assumes that writes are ordered.
> > 
> > You mean the one defined like this:
> >   #define wmb()   asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
> > ? If it assumed writes are ordered, then it would just be a barrier().
> 
> You read wrong part of the include file. Really, it is 
> (2.6.22,include/asm-i386/system.h):
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
> #define wmb() alternative("lock; addl __PLACEHOLDER__1_,0(%%esp)", "sfence", 
> X86_FEATURE_XMM)
> #else
> #define wmb()   __asm__ __volatile__ ("": : :"memory")
> #endif
> 
> CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE is dependent on MWINCHIP3D || MWINCHIP2 || MWINCHIPC6
> --- so on Intel and AMD, it is really just barrier().
> 
> So drivers can't assume that wmb() works on write-combining memory.

Drivers should be able to assume that wmb() orders _everything_ (except
some whacky Altix thing, which I really want to fold under wmb at some
point anyway).

So I decided that old x86 semantics isn't right, and now it really is a
lock op / sfence everywhere.


-
unsubscribe notice
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/