Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Would that make more sense ?
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh, actually, I got things reversed in this email : the readl(io_addr)
> > must be done _after_ the __m_cnt_hi read.
> > 
> > Therefore, two consecutive executions would look like :
> > 
> > barrier();  /* Make sure the compiler does not reorder __m_cnt_hi and
> >                previous mmio read. */
> > read __m_cnt_hi
> > smp_rmb();  /* Waits for every cached memory reads to complete */
> 
> If these are MMIO reads, then you need rmb() rather than smp_rmb(),
> at least on architectures that can reorder writes (Power, Itanium,
> and I believe also ARM, ...).

The read is from a clock source. The only writes that are happening is 
by the clock itself.

On a UP system, is a rmb still needed? That is, can you have two reads on 
the same CPU from the clock source that will produce a backwards clock? 
That to me sounds like the clock interface is broken.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/