Re: [PATCH 2/4] arch: Add lightweight memory barriers fast_rmb() and fast_wmb()

[Alexander Duyck]

On 11/17/2014 12:52 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > There are a number of situations where the mandatory barriers rmb() and
> > wmb() are used to order memory/memory operations in the device drivers
> > and those barriers are much heavier than they actually need to be.
> Ugh. I absolutely despise the name.
>
> It's not "fast". It's just limited. It's the same as "smp_*mb()", in
> that it works on cacheable memory, but it actually stays around even
> for non-SMP builds.
>
> So I think the name is actively misleading.
>
> Naming should be about what it does, not about some kind of PR thing
> that confuses people into thinking it's "better".
>
> Maybe "dma_*mb()" would be acceptable, and ends up having the same
> naming convention as "smb_*mb()", and explains what it's about.

What would you think of the name "coherent_*mb()"?  I would prefer to 
avoid dma in the name since, at least in my mind, that implies MMIO.

It also ties in well with dma_alloc_coherent/dma_free_coherent which is 
what would typically be used to allocate the memory we would be using 
the barrier to protect anyway.

> And yes, in the same spirit, it would probably be good to try to
> eventually get rid of the plain "*mb()" functions, and perhaps call
> them "mmio_*mb()" to clarify that they are about ordering memory wrt
> mmio.
>
> Hmm?
>
>                          Linus

I will work on pulling all of the coherent barrier cases out of using 
the plain "*mb()" calls first.  We need to sort that out before we could 
look at renaming the plain barrier functions.

- Alex
--
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/