From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "mikey@neuling.org" <mikey@neuling.org>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca" <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
"donald.c.skidmore@intel.com" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"michael@ellerman.id.au" <michael@ellerman.id.au>,
"matthew.vick@intel.com" <matthew.vick@intel.com>,
"nic_swsd@realtek.com" <nic_swsd@realtek.com>,
"geert@linux-m68k.org" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
"fweisbec@gmail.com" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arch: Introduce load_acquire() and store_release()
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:58:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <546634AC.9070902@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1C9F0780@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On 11/14/2014 02:45 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck
>> It is common for device drivers to make use of acquire/release semantics
>> when dealing with descriptors stored in device memory. On reviewing the
>> documentation and code for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() as
>> well as reviewing an IBM website that goes over the use of PowerPC barriers
>> at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/systems/articles/powerpc.html it
>> occurred to me that the same code could likely be applied to device drivers.
>>
>> As a result this patch introduces load_acquire() and store_release(). The
>> load_acquire() function can be used in the place of situations where a test
>> for ownership must be followed by a memory barrier. The below example is
>> from ixgbe:
>>
>> if (!rx_desc->wb.upper.status_error)
>> break;
>>
>> /* This memory barrier is needed to keep us from reading
>> * any other fields out of the rx_desc until we know the
>> * descriptor has been written back
>> */
>> rmb();
>>
>> With load_acquire() this can be changed to:
>>
>> if (!load_acquire(&rx_desc->wb.upper.status_error))
>> break;
> If I'm quickly reading the 'new' code I need to look up yet another
> function, with the 'old' code I can easily see the logic.
>
> You've also added a memory barrier to the 'break' path - which isn't needed.
>
> The driver might also have additional code that can be added before the barrier
> so reducing the cost of the barrier.
>
> The driver may also be able to perform multiple actions before a barrier is needed.
>
> Hiding barriers isn't necessarily a good idea anyway.
> If you are writing a driver you need to understand when and where they are needed.
>
> Maybe you need a new (weaker) barrier to replace rmb() on some architectures.
>
> ...
>
>
> David
Yeah, I think I might explore creating some lightweight barriers. The
load/acquire stuff is a bit overkill for what is needed.
Thanks,
Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "mikey@neuling.org" <mikey@neuling.org>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca" <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
"donald.c.skidmore@intel.com" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"michael@ellerman.id.au" <michael@ellerman.id.au>,
"matthew.vick@intel.com" <matthew.vick@intel.com>,
"nic_swsd@realtek.com" <nic_swsd@realtek.com>,
"geert@linux-m68k.org" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
"fweisbec@gmail.com" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arch: Introduce load_acquire() and store_release()
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:58:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <546634AC.9070902@redhat.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20141114165820.sQbaC9-cz6WAZiLo77AH5SlcYUS4riRwEtdfPaInPJs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1C9F0780@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On 11/14/2014 02:45 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck
>> It is common for device drivers to make use of acquire/release semantics
>> when dealing with descriptors stored in device memory. On reviewing the
>> documentation and code for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() as
>> well as reviewing an IBM website that goes over the use of PowerPC barriers
>> at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/systems/articles/powerpc.html it
>> occurred to me that the same code could likely be applied to device drivers.
>>
>> As a result this patch introduces load_acquire() and store_release(). The
>> load_acquire() function can be used in the place of situations where a test
>> for ownership must be followed by a memory barrier. The below example is
>> from ixgbe:
>>
>> if (!rx_desc->wb.upper.status_error)
>> break;
>>
>> /* This memory barrier is needed to keep us from reading
>> * any other fields out of the rx_desc until we know the
>> * descriptor has been written back
>> */
>> rmb();
>>
>> With load_acquire() this can be changed to:
>>
>> if (!load_acquire(&rx_desc->wb.upper.status_error))
>> break;
> If I'm quickly reading the 'new' code I need to look up yet another
> function, with the 'old' code I can easily see the logic.
>
> You've also added a memory barrier to the 'break' path - which isn't needed.
>
> The driver might also have additional code that can be added before the barrier
> so reducing the cost of the barrier.
>
> The driver may also be able to perform multiple actions before a barrier is needed.
>
> Hiding barriers isn't necessarily a good idea anyway.
> If you are writing a driver you need to understand when and where they are needed.
>
> Maybe you need a new (weaker) barrier to replace rmb() on some architectures.
>
> ...
>
>
> David
Yeah, I think I might explore creating some lightweight barriers. The
load/acquire stuff is a bit overkill for what is needed.
Thanks,
Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "mikey@neuling.org" <mikey@neuling.org>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca" <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
"donald.c.skidmore@intel.com" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"michael@ellerman.id.au" <michael@ellerman.id.au>,
"matthew.vick@intel.com" <matthew.vick@intel.com>,
"nic_swsd@realtek.com" <nic_swsd@realtek.com>,
"geert@linux-m68k.org" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
"fweisbec@gmail.com" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arch: Introduce load_acquire() and store_release()
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:58:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <546634AC.9070902@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1C9F0780@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On 11/14/2014 02:45 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck
>> It is common for device drivers to make use of acquire/release semantics
>> when dealing with descriptors stored in device memory. On reviewing the
>> documentation and code for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() as
>> well as reviewing an IBM website that goes over the use of PowerPC barriers
>> at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/systems/articles/powerpc.html it
>> occurred to me that the same code could likely be applied to device drivers.
>>
>> As a result this patch introduces load_acquire() and store_release(). The
>> load_acquire() function can be used in the place of situations where a test
>> for ownership must be followed by a memory barrier. The below example is
>> from ixgbe:
>>
>> if (!rx_desc->wb.upper.status_error)
>> break;
>>
>> /* This memory barrier is needed to keep us from reading
>> * any other fields out of the rx_desc until we know the
>> * descriptor has been written back
>> */
>> rmb();
>>
>> With load_acquire() this can be changed to:
>>
>> if (!load_acquire(&rx_desc->wb.upper.status_error))
>> break;
> If I'm quickly reading the 'new' code I need to look up yet another
> function, with the 'old' code I can easily see the logic.
>
> You've also added a memory barrier to the 'break' path - which isn't needed.
>
> The driver might also have additional code that can be added before the barrier
> so reducing the cost of the barrier.
>
> The driver may also be able to perform multiple actions before a barrier is needed.
>
> Hiding barriers isn't necessarily a good idea anyway.
> If you are writing a driver you need to understand when and where they are needed.
>
> Maybe you need a new (weaker) barrier to replace rmb() on some architectures.
>
> ...
>
>
> David
Yeah, I think I might explore creating some lightweight barriers. The
load/acquire stuff is a bit overkill for what is needed.
Thanks,
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-14 16:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-13 19:27 [PATCH 0/3] Introduce load_acquire() and store_release() Alexander Duyck
2014-11-13 19:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] arch: " Alexander Duyck
2014-11-14 10:19 ` Will Deacon
2014-11-14 10:19 ` Will Deacon
2014-11-14 10:19 ` Will Deacon
2014-11-14 16:00 ` Alexander Duyck
2014-11-14 16:00 ` Alexander Duyck
2014-11-14 16:00 ` Alexander Duyck
2014-11-14 10:45 ` David Laight
2014-11-14 10:45 ` David Laight
2014-11-14 10:45 ` David Laight
2014-11-14 10:45 ` David Laight
2014-11-14 16:58 ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2014-11-14 16:58 ` Alexander Duyck
2014-11-14 16:58 ` Alexander Duyck
2014-11-13 19:27 ` [PATCH 2/3] r8169: Use load_acquire() and store_release() to reduce memory barrier overhead Alexander Duyck
2014-11-13 21:30 ` Francois Romieu
2014-11-13 23:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2014-11-15 21:13 ` Francois Romieu
2014-11-13 19:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] fm10k/igb/ixgbe: Use load_acquire on Rx descriptor Alexander Duyck
2014-11-14 17:25 ` Jeff Kirsher
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=546634AC.9070902@redhat.com \
--to=alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=donald.c.skidmore@intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=matthew.vick@intel.com \
--cc=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nic_swsd@realtek.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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.