diff --git a/include/asm-x86/system.h b/include/asm-x86/system.h
index 01ba1f8..4c15eb1 100644
--- a/include/asm-x86/system.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86/system.h
@@ -202,4 +202,109 @@
 
 void default_idle(void);
 
+/*
+ * Force strict CPU ordering.
+ * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
+ * to devices.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
+/*
+ * For now, "wmb()" doesn't actually do anything, as all
+ * Intel CPU's follow what Intel calls a *Processor Order*,
+ * in which all writes are seen in the program order even
+ * outside the CPU.
+ *
+ * I expect future Intel CPU's to have a weaker ordering,
+ * but I'd also expect them to finally get their act together
+ * and add some real memory barriers if so.
+ *
+ * Some non intel clones support out of order store. wmb() ceases to be a
+ * nop for these.
+ */
+#define mb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
+#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
+#define wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM)
+#else
+#define mb() 	asm volatile("mfence":::"memory")
+#define rmb()	asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")
+#define wmb()	asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
+#endif
+
+/**
+ * read_barrier_depends - Flush all pending reads that subsequents reads
+ * depend on.
+ *
+ * No data-dependent reads from memory-like regions are ever reordered
+ * over this barrier.  All reads preceding this primitive are guaranteed
+ * to access memory (but not necessarily other CPUs' caches) before any
+ * reads following this primitive that depend on the data return by
+ * any of the preceding reads.  This primitive is much lighter weight than
+ * rmb() on most CPUs, and is never heavier weight than is
+ * rmb().
+ *
+ * These ordering constraints are respected by both the local CPU
+ * and the compiler.
+ *
+ * Ordering is not guaranteed by anything other than these primitives,
+ * not even by data dependencies.  See the documentation for
+ * memory_barrier() for examples and URLs to more information.
+ *
+ * For example, the following code would force ordering (the initial
+ * value of "a" is zero, "b" is one, and "p" is "&a"):
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ *	CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ *	b = 2;
+ *	memory_barrier();
+ *	p = &b;				q = p;
+ *					read_barrier_depends();
+ *					d = *q;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * because the read of "*q" depends on the read of "p" and these
+ * two reads are separated by a read_barrier_depends().  However,
+ * the following code, with the same initial values for "a" and "b":
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ *	CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ *	a = 2;
+ *	memory_barrier();
+ *	b = 3;				y = b;
+ *					read_barrier_depends();
+ *					x = a;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * does not enforce ordering, since there is no data dependency between
+ * the read of "a" and the read of "b".  Therefore, on some CPUs, such
+ * as Alpha, "y" could be set to 3 and "x" to 0.  Use rmb()
+ * in cases like this where there are no data dependencies.
+ **/
+
+#define read_barrier_depends()	do { } while (0)
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+#define smp_mb()	mb()
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE
+# define smp_rmb()	rmb()
+#else
+# define smp_rmb()	barrier()
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
+# define smp_wmb() 	wmb()
+#else
+# define smp_wmb()	barrier()
+#endif
+#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	read_barrier_depends()
+#define set_mb(var, value) do { (void) xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
+#else
+#define smp_mb()	barrier()
+#define smp_rmb()	barrier()
+#define smp_wmb()	barrier()
+#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	do { } while (0)
+#define set_mb(var, value) do { var = value; barrier(); } while (0)
+#endif
+
+
 #endif