From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ehabkost@redhat.com, ak@suse.de,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, anthony@codemonkey.ws, hpa@zytor.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
mingo@elte.hu
Subject: [PATCH 7/9] unify smp parts of system.h
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:08:31 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11968673473254-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1196867342420-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
The memory barrier parts of system.h are not very different between
i386 and x86_64, the main difference being the availability of
instructions, which we handle with the use of ifdefs.
They are consolidated in system.h file, and then removed from
the arch-specific headers.
Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
---
include/asm-x86/system.h | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/asm-x86/system_32.h | 99 ----------------------------------------
include/asm-x86/system_64.h | 25 ----------
3 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-x86.orig/include/asm-x86/system.h
+++ linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system.h
@@ -202,4 +202,109 @@ extern void free_init_pages(char *what,
void default_idle(void);
+/*
+ * Force strict CPU ordering.
+ * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
+ * to devices.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
+/*
+ * For now, "wmb()" doesn't actually do anything, as all
+ * Intel CPU's follow what Intel calls a *Processor Order*,
+ * in which all writes are seen in the program order even
+ * outside the CPU.
+ *
+ * I expect future Intel CPU's to have a weaker ordering,
+ * but I'd also expect them to finally get their act together
+ * and add some real memory barriers if so.
+ *
+ * Some non intel clones support out of order store. wmb() ceases to be a
+ * nop for these.
+ */
+#define mb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
+#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
+#define wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM)
+#else
+#define mb() asm volatile("mfence":::"memory")
+#define rmb() asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")
+#define wmb() asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
+#endif
+
+/**
+ * read_barrier_depends - Flush all pending reads that subsequents reads
+ * depend on.
+ *
+ * No data-dependent reads from memory-like regions are ever reordered
+ * over this barrier. All reads preceding this primitive are guaranteed
+ * to access memory (but not necessarily other CPUs' caches) before any
+ * reads following this primitive that depend on the data return by
+ * any of the preceding reads. This primitive is much lighter weight than
+ * rmb() on most CPUs, and is never heavier weight than is
+ * rmb().
+ *
+ * These ordering constraints are respected by both the local CPU
+ * and the compiler.
+ *
+ * Ordering is not guaranteed by anything other than these primitives,
+ * not even by data dependencies. See the documentation for
+ * memory_barrier() for examples and URLs to more information.
+ *
+ * For example, the following code would force ordering (the initial
+ * value of "a" is zero, "b" is one, and "p" is "&a"):
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ * CPU 0 CPU 1
+ *
+ * b = 2;
+ * memory_barrier();
+ * p = &b; q = p;
+ * read_barrier_depends();
+ * d = *q;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * because the read of "*q" depends on the read of "p" and these
+ * two reads are separated by a read_barrier_depends(). However,
+ * the following code, with the same initial values for "a" and "b":
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ * CPU 0 CPU 1
+ *
+ * a = 2;
+ * memory_barrier();
+ * b = 3; y = b;
+ * read_barrier_depends();
+ * x = a;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * does not enforce ordering, since there is no data dependency between
+ * the read of "a" and the read of "b". Therefore, on some CPUs, such
+ * as Alpha, "y" could be set to 3 and "x" to 0. Use rmb()
+ * in cases like this where there are no data dependencies.
+ **/
+
+#define read_barrier_depends() do { } while (0)
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+#define smp_mb() mb()
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE
+# define smp_rmb() rmb()
+#else
+# define smp_rmb() barrier()
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
+# define smp_wmb() wmb()
+#else
+# define smp_wmb() barrier()
+#endif
+#define smp_read_barrier_depends() read_barrier_depends()
+#define set_mb(var, value) do { (void) xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
+#else
+#define smp_mb() barrier()
+#define smp_rmb() barrier()
+#define smp_wmb() barrier()
+#define smp_read_barrier_depends() do { } while (0)
+#define set_mb(var, value) do { var = value; barrier(); } while (0)
+#endif
+
+
#endif
Index: linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_32.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-x86.orig/include/asm-x86/system_32.h
+++ linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_32.h
@@ -36,105 +36,6 @@ extern struct task_struct * FASTCALL(__s
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
-/*
- * Force strict CPU ordering.
- * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
- * to devices.
- *
- * For now, "wmb()" doesn't actually do anything, as all
- * Intel CPU's follow what Intel calls a *Processor Order*,
- * in which all writes are seen in the program order even
- * outside the CPU.
- *
- * I expect future Intel CPU's to have a weaker ordering,
- * but I'd also expect them to finally get their act together
- * and add some real memory barriers if so.
- *
- * Some non intel clones support out of order store. wmb() ceases to be a
- * nop for these.
- */
-
-
-#define mb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
-#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
-#define wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM)
-
-/**
- * read_barrier_depends - Flush all pending reads that subsequents reads
- * depend on.
- *
- * No data-dependent reads from memory-like regions are ever reordered
- * over this barrier. All reads preceding this primitive are guaranteed
- * to access memory (but not necessarily other CPUs' caches) before any
- * reads following this primitive that depend on the data return by
- * any of the preceding reads. This primitive is much lighter weight than
- * rmb() on most CPUs, and is never heavier weight than is
- * rmb().
- *
- * These ordering constraints are respected by both the local CPU
- * and the compiler.
- *
- * Ordering is not guaranteed by anything other than these primitives,
- * not even by data dependencies. See the documentation for
- * memory_barrier() for examples and URLs to more information.
- *
- * For example, the following code would force ordering (the initial
- * value of "a" is zero, "b" is one, and "p" is "&a"):
- *
- * <programlisting>
- * CPU 0 CPU 1
- *
- * b = 2;
- * memory_barrier();
- * p = &b; q = p;
- * read_barrier_depends();
- * d = *q;
- * </programlisting>
- *
- * because the read of "*q" depends on the read of "p" and these
- * two reads are separated by a read_barrier_depends(). However,
- * the following code, with the same initial values for "a" and "b":
- *
- * <programlisting>
- * CPU 0 CPU 1
- *
- * a = 2;
- * memory_barrier();
- * b = 3; y = b;
- * read_barrier_depends();
- * x = a;
- * </programlisting>
- *
- * does not enforce ordering, since there is no data dependency between
- * the read of "a" and the read of "b". Therefore, on some CPUs, such
- * as Alpha, "y" could be set to 3 and "x" to 0. Use rmb()
- * in cases like this where there are no data dependencies.
- **/
-
-#define read_barrier_depends() do { } while(0)
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-#define smp_mb() mb()
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE
-# define smp_rmb() rmb()
-#else
-# define smp_rmb() barrier()
-#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
-# define smp_wmb() wmb()
-#else
-# define smp_wmb() barrier()
-#endif
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends() read_barrier_depends()
-#define set_mb(var, value) do { (void) xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
-#else
-#define smp_mb() barrier()
-#define smp_rmb() barrier()
-#define smp_wmb() barrier()
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends() do { } while(0)
-#define set_mb(var, value) do { var = value; barrier(); } while (0)
-#endif
-
#include <linux/irqflags.h>
/*
Index: linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_64.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-x86.orig/include/asm-x86/system_64.h
+++ linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_64.h
@@ -41,31 +41,6 @@
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-#define smp_mb() mb()
-#define smp_rmb() barrier()
-#define smp_wmb() barrier()
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends() do {} while(0)
-#else
-#define smp_mb() barrier()
-#define smp_rmb() barrier()
-#define smp_wmb() barrier()
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends() do {} while(0)
-#endif
-
-
-/*
- * Force strict CPU ordering.
- * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
- * to devices.
- */
-#define mb() asm volatile("mfence":::"memory")
-#define rmb() asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")
-#define wmb() asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
-
-#define read_barrier_depends() do {} while(0)
-#define set_mb(var, value) do { (void) xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
-
#include <linux/irqflags.h>
#endif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-05 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-05 15:08 [PATCH 0/9 - v2] Integrate system.h Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 1/9] remove volatile keyword from clflush Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2007-12-05 20:22 ` [PATCH 0/9 - v2] Integrate system.h Ingo Molnar
[not found] ` <1196867319253-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 2/9] put together equal pieces of system.h Glauber de Oliveira Costa
[not found] ` <11968673241599-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 3/9] unify load_segment macro Glauber de Oliveira Costa
[not found] ` <11968673291072-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 4/9] remove references to cr8 register Glauber de Oliveira Costa
[not found] ` <1196867333728-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 5/9] unify paravirt parts of system.h Glauber de Oliveira Costa
[not found] ` <11968673383347-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 6/9] remove unused macro Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2007-12-05 15:08 ` Glauber de Oliveira Costa [this message]
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 8/9] move switch_to macro to system.h Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2007-12-05 15:08 ` [PATCH 9/9] unify system.h Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2007-12-06 21:11 ` [PATCH 1/9] remove volatile keyword from clflush Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=11968673473254-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com \
--to=gcosta@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).