Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:49:49 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Eric Anholt <eta@lclark.edu> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 33663 for review Message-ID: <XFMail.20030714174949.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1058006399.1464.52.camel@leguin>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12-Jul-2003 Eric Anholt wrote: > On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 10:57, John Baldwin wrote: >> On 25-Jun-2003 Peter Wemm wrote: >> > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=33663 >> > >> > Change 33663 by peter@peter_hammer on 2003/06/25 15:05:09 >> > >> > Port sym to amd64 >> >> This is possibly not correct. Do all hammer's support the P3+ >> SFENCE and related instructions? Even i386 should probably be >> using what bus_space_barrier() uses. Heck, sym should probably >> just be using bus_space_barrier anyways. > > It would sure be nice to have an MI call for the bus_space_barrier() > calls that don't need a bus_space_tag. The DRM unfortunately doesn't > (and won't ever, I think) do bus_space, so we have to have > platform-specific ifdefs for read, write, and read/write barriers. For simple memory barriers, you can probably get by with atomic(9) operations coupled with appropriate membars. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030714174949.jhb>