All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	jeff@garzik.org, paulus@samba.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org,
	segher@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:32:10 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1158010331.3879.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200609111108.18138.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>

On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 11:08 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:00 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > If we accept this, I don't think we're much better off than we are
> > > currently (not that I have a problem with that).  That is, many
> > > drivers
> > > would still need to be fixed up.
> >
> > Not necessarily if you introduce the trick of doing the mmiowb() in
> > spin_unlock when a per-cpu flag has been set previously by writel... not
> > sure if it's worth tho.
> 
> True, though again this would add a branch to writeX.

No, it adds a cacheable store to writeX and a branch to spin_unlock

> Sure, that's where one would typically use it, but it really is a memory 
> barrier...

I prefer having separate semantics for it so people understand it better
but I may be wrong :)

> That's because it *is* a barrier.  I don't think it's any harder to understand 
> then regular memory barriers for example.  It's just that you'd typically use 
> it in conjunction with locks to ensure proper device access.

That's why I prefer defining it as a MMIO + lock barrier.

> Ok, that's fine, though I think you'd only want the very weak semantics (as 
> provided by your __raw* routines) on write combined memory typically?

Well, that and memory with no side effects (like frame buffers)

> > I'm very much against your terminology. It's -not- an IO to IO barrier.
> > It's an IO to lock barrier. Really. IO to IO is something else. ordering
> > of IOs between CPUs has absolutely no meaning outside of the context of
> > locked regions in any case.
> 
> But it *is* MMIO vs. MMIO.  There's confusion because your __raw* routines 
> don't even guarantee same CPU ordering, while mmiowb() is solely intended for 
> inter-CPU ordering.
> 
> But as you say, the most common (maybe only) use model for it is to make sure 
> critical sections protecting device access behave correctly, so I don't have 
> a problem tying it to locks somehow.

Ben.



  reply	other threads:[~2006-09-11 21:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-09  2:03 Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM Paul Mackerras
2006-09-09  2:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-09-09  3:02   ` Paul Mackerras
2006-09-09  3:54     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-09-09  7:24     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-09  9:34     ` David Miller
2006-09-09  9:55       ` Jeff Garzik
2006-09-09 10:08         ` David Miller
2006-09-10 17:18           ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-10 19:35             ` Alan Cox
2006-09-10 21:25               ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-10 22:23                 ` Alan Cox
2006-09-10 22:18                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 13:19                     ` Jes Sorensen
2006-09-10 23:35                 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11  0:12                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11  0:34                     ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11  1:04                       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11  1:13                       ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11  1:35                         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11  9:02                     ` Alan Cox
2006-09-11  9:23                       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11  0:25                 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11  0:54                   ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11  1:10                     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11  1:48                       ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11  3:53                         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 18:12                     ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11  1:00                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 18:08                     ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11 21:32                       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2006-09-10 20:01             ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11 13:21               ` David Miller
2006-09-11 14:17                 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-12  0:32                   ` David Miller
2006-09-12  0:49                     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 16:47                       ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-12  0:54                     ` Roland Dreier
2006-09-09 11:16       ` Paul Mackerras
2006-09-09  7:23   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-09  9:38     ` David Miller
2006-09-09 15:09     ` Alan Cox
2006-09-10 17:19       ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-10 17:35         ` Michael Buesch
2006-09-10 17:49           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-09-10 18:02             ` Michael Buesch
2006-09-09 15:08   ` Alan Cox
2006-09-09 18:34   ` Auke Kok
2006-09-09 19:10     ` Patrick McFarland
2006-09-09 15:06 ` Alan Cox
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-11  5:03 Michael Chan
2006-09-11  5:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12  4:30 Albert Cahalan
2006-09-12  5:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12  6:04   ` Albert Cahalan
2006-09-12  6:12     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12  7:09       ` Albert Cahalan
2006-09-12  7:17         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12  7:21           ` Albert Cahalan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1158010331.3879.56.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
    --cc=jeff@garzik.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.