Michael Buesch wrote: > On Friday 21 July 2006 21:49, Brice Goglin wrote: > >> + myri10ge_pio_copy(mgp->sram + MYRI10GE_FW_OFFSET + i, >> + fw->data + i, >> + min(256U, (unsigned)(fw->size - i))); >> + mb(); >> + readb(mgp->sram); >> + mb(); >> > > Why two mb() here? > I would say actually none is needed. > The readb fully synchronizes the previous writes on bus level > (and so on CPU level, too)
At least on i386 and x86-64, readb does not pass an explicit memory barrier to the processor. We use a "weak-ordering" write-combining mapping, so the previous PIO-write accesses and the readb are not automatically serialized. So in absence of the first mb(), and because "WC" read can definitely pass "WC" write, the readb (whose purpose is to guarantee the previous write is finished) could actually be complete long before those have even started (especially because WC buffers can stay in the processor a long time before being flushed in absence of synchronization instructions). The second mb() is indeed probably superfluous and could be removed. The WC semantics are not weak enough to allow WC writes to pass WC read (given it was only one instruction in init code, we did the lazy thing). Brice - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
