MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

[Nick Piggin]

On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:07, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:29 pm Nick Piggin wrote:

> > You mention strong ordering WRT spin_unlock, which suggests that
> > you would prefer to take option #2 (the current powerpc one): io/io
> > is ordered and io is contained inside spinlocks, but io/cacheable
> > in general is not ordered.
>
> I was thinking it would be good for the weaker accessors, but now that I
> think about it you could just use the new io_* barrier functions.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't in favor of the io/cacheable ordering
> as well.
>
> > For any high performance drivers that are well maintained (ie. the
> > ones where slowdown might be noticed), everyone should have a pretty
> > good handle on memory ordering requirements, so it shouldn't take
> > long to go through and convert them to relaxed accessors.
>
> Yep.  Thanks for working on this, Nick, it's definitely a good thing that
> you're taking control of it. :)

Well, I really am just trying to help the kernel for everyone (and every
architecture). Performance for all architectures really is my #2 priority,
so if any arch becomes irrepearably slower under a proposal I would
go back to the drawing board.

I'll come up with a proposal in the form of an initial code+documentation
patch when I get some more time on it.