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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
