Synchronization [was Re: The Magic Show: kernel_map() disappearing]
Jesper Skov
jskov at cygnus.co.uk
Fri Jan 15 19:26:15 EST 1999
>>>>> "Cort" == Cort Dougan <cort at persephone.cs.nmt.edu> writes:
Cort> That's my rationale for doing the sync and eieio in the mb().
Cort> That way, we're guaranteed no races no matter what assumptions
Cort> someone makes about the x86 when adding barriers to their driver
Cort> code. Is that unreasonable?
Cort> Alan} x86 and most other processors dont have the notion of a store
Cort> Alan} barrier and an i/o barrier beign different
IMHO, it is unreasonable. Why should the majority of PPC drivers run
with suboptimal performance because of bad programmer assumptions?
I'd suggest changing mb() (or whatever an appropriate name would be)
to 'eieio'. MP code and generic drivers that expect inter-CPU
synchronization to happen when using this macro should be fixed.
...but then, what do I know? :)
Jesper
[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request at lists.linuxppc.org ]]
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list