From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:57:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7dc0bb83644f4cd44b4810a99d0003a1@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070822035539.GB26374@wotan.suse.de>
>> The powerpc kernel needs to have full sync insns in every I/O
>> accessor in order to enforce all the ordering rules Linux demands.
>> It's a bloody shame, but the alternative would be to make the
>> barriers lots more expensive. A third alternative would be to
>
> Well lots more expensive compared to what you have now. But what
> you have now is like having those expensive barriers between
> *every* io access.
Yeah. But I/O reads are very expensive anyway, and the barriers
are used for more than just I/O ordering.
I/O writes are a different thing; ideally, they would use only
eieio, if anything at all.
Maybe the tradeoff isn't optimal. The I/O primitives didn't have
all those "sync"s in there before, they got added because some bad
interaction with spinlocks was discovered, if my memory isn't failing
me.
>> have barrier ops that do not order everything, but just A vs. B
>> for various choices of A and B (coherent accesses, MMIO accesses,
>> etc.)
>
> The non-smp_ variant is supposed to order everything, AFAIK. Maybe
> you could get more fancy and have PIO vs MMIO etc etc. but it looks
> like this whole area is in a pretty sticky state anyway so let's
> not think about that.
*Thinking* about it is fun. Trying to get the code merged would be
a different thing ;-)
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-23 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-21 2:11 [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix Nick Piggin
2007-08-21 2:16 ` [patch 1/2] powerpc: smp_wmb speedup Nick Piggin
2007-08-21 2:21 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-21 19:07 ` [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix Joel Schopp
2007-08-21 19:43 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-21 21:42 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-08-22 1:16 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-22 3:29 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-22 3:55 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-23 17:57 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2007-08-24 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-22 3:15 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-22 3:33 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-22 4:05 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-23 17:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-05-21 14:10 Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 15:27 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-21 15:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 15:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-23 2:14 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-23 4:40 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-23 4:53 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-23 5:48 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-23 6:40 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-26 1:38 ` Nick Piggin
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=7dc0bb83644f4cd44b4810a99d0003a1@kernel.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=paulus@samba.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.