Re: Memory Barrier Definitions

From: Anton Blanchard (
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 17:57:52 EST

> You have
> Compiler ordering
> CPU v CPU memory ordering
> CPU v I/O memory ordering
> I/O v I/O memory ordering

Yep. Maybe we could have:

CPU v CPU smp_*mb or cpu_*mb
CPU v I/O *mb
I/O v I/O io_*mb

Then again before Linus hits me on the head for hoarding vowels,

I should suggest we make these a little less cryptic:

CPU v CPU cpu_{read,write,memory}_barrier
CPU v I/O {read,write,memory}_barrier
I/O v I/O io_{read,write,memory}_barrier

> and our current heirarchy is a little bit more squashed than that. I'd
> agree. We actually hit a corner case of this on the IDT winchip x86 where
> we run relaxed store ordering and have to define wmb() as a locked add of
> zero to the top of stack - which does have a penalty that isnt needed
> for CPU ordering.
> How much of this impacts Mips64 ?

I remember some ia64 implementations have issues. Jesse, could you
fill us in again? I think you have problems with out of order
loads/stores to noncacheable space, right?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:31 EST