Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Ben Hutchings
[off-list ref] wrote:

If this is right, how can it be safe to use readq/writeq at all?

Pray.

Or don't care about ordering: use hardware that is well-designed and
doesn't have crap interfaces that are fragile.

If you care about ordering, you need to do them as two separate
accesses, and have a fence in between. Which, quite frankly, sounds
like the right model for you *anyway*, since then you could use
write-combining memory and you might even go faster, despite an
explicit fence and thus a minimum of 2 transactions.

Seriously. If you care that deeply about the ordering of the bytes you
write out, MAKE THAT ORDERING VERY EXPLICIT IN THE SOURCE CODE. Don't
say "oh, with this hack, I win 100ns". You need to ask yourself: what
do you care about more? Going really fast on some machine that you can
test, or being safe?

With PCIe, it's *probably* fine to just say "we expect 64-bit accesses
to make it through unmolested".

The 128-bit case I really don't know about. It probably works too. But
while I'd call the 64-bit case almost certain (in the absence of truly
crap hardware), the 128-bit case I have a hard time judging how
certain it is going to be.

                   Linus