Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #2]

[Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:04:51PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > [For information on bus mastering DMA and coherency please read ....]
> > sincee have a doc on this
> 
> Documentation/pci.txt?

and:

Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt
Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> 
> > The use of volatile generates poorer code and hides the serialization in 
> > type declarations that may be far from the code.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that.

in foo.h

	struct blah {
		volatile int x;	/* need serialization
	}

2 million miles away

	blah.x = 1;
	blah.y = 4;

And you've no idea that its magically serialized due to a type declaration
in a header you've never read. Hence the "dont use volatile" rule

> > Is this true of IA-64 ??
> 
> Are you referring to non-temporal loads and stores?

Yep. But Matthew answered that

> > Should clarify local ordering v SMP ordering for locks implied here.
> 
> Do you mean explain what each sort of lock does?

spin_unlock ensures that local CPU writes before the lock are visible
to all processors before the lock is dropped but it has no effect on 
I/O ordering. Just a need for clarity.

> > > + (*) inX(), outX():
> > > +
> > > +     These are intended to talk to legacy i386 hardware using an alternate bus
> > > +     addressing mode.  They are synchronous as far as the x86 CPUs are
> > 
> > Not really true. Lots of PCI devices use them. Need to talk about "I/O space"
> 
> Which bit is not really true?

The "legacy i386 hardware" bit. Many processors have an I/O space.