From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, monstr@monstr.eu, dhowells@redhat.com,
broonie@linaro.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 17:47:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1400777250-17335-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> (raw)
Hi all,
This is version 2 of the series I originally posted here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/17/269
Changes since v1 include:
- Added relevant acks from arch maintainers
- Fixed potential compiler re-ordering issue for x86 definitions
I'd *really* appreciate some feedback on the proposed semantics here, but
acks are still good :)
The original cover letter is duplicated below.
Cheers,
Will
--->8
This RFC series attempts to define a portable (i.e. cross-architecture)
definition of the {readX,writeX}_relaxed MMIO accessor functions. These
functions are already in widespread use amongst drivers (mainly those supporting
devices embedded in ARM SoCs), but lack any well-defined semantics and,
subsequently, any portable definitions to allow these drivers to be compiled for
other architectures.
The two main motivations for this series are:
(1) To promote use of the _relaxed MMIO accessors on weakly-ordered
architectures, where they can bring significant performance improvements
over their non-relaxed counterparts.
(2) To allow COMPILE_TEST to build drivers using the relaxed accessors across
all architectures.
The proposed semantics largely match exactly those provided by the ARM
implementation (i.e. no weaker), with one exception (see below).
Informally:
- Relaxed accesses to the same device are ordered with respect to each other.
- Relaxed accesses are *not* guaranteed to be ordered with respect to normal
memory accesses (e.g. DMA buffers -- this is what gives us the performance
boost over the non-relaxed versions).
- Relaxed accesses are not guaranteed to be ordered with respect to
LOCK/UNLOCK operations.
In actual fact, the relaxed accessors *are* ordered with respect to LOCK/UNLOCK
operations on ARM[64], but I have added this constraint for the benefit of
PowerPC, which has expensive I/O barriers in the spin_unlock path for the
non-relaxed accessors.
A corollary to this is that mmiowb() probably needs rethinking. As it currently
stands, an mmiowb() is required to order MMIO writes to a device from multiple
CPUs, even if that device is protected by a lock. However, this isn't often used
in practice, leading to PowerPC implementing both mmiowb() *and* synchronising
I/O in spin_unlock.
I would propose making the non-relaxed I/O accessors ordered with respect to
LOCK/UNLOCK, leaving mmiowb() to be used with the relaxed accessors, if
required, but would welcome thoughts/suggestions on this topic.
Will Deacon (18):
asm-generic: io: implement relaxed accessor macros as conditional
wrappers
microblaze: io: remove dummy relaxed accessor macros
s390: io: remove dummy relaxed accessor macros for reads
xtensa: io: remove dummy relaxed accessor macros for reads
alpha: io: implement relaxed accessor macros for writes
frv: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
cris: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
ia64: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
m32r: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
m68k: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
mn10300: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
parisc: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
powerpc: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
sparc: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
tile: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
x86: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros for writes
documentation: memory-barriers: clarify relaxed io accessor semantics
asm-generic: io: define relaxed accessor macros unconditionally
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 13 +++++++++----
arch/alpha/include/asm/io.h | 12 ++++++++----
arch/cris/include/asm/io.h | 3 +++
arch/frv/include/asm/io.h | 3 +++
arch/ia64/include/asm/io.h | 4 ++++
arch/m32r/include/asm/io.h | 3 +++
arch/m68k/include/asm/io.h | 8 ++++++++
arch/m68k/include/asm/io_no.h | 4 ----
arch/microblaze/include/asm/io.h | 8 --------
arch/mn10300/include/asm/io.h | 4 ++++
arch/parisc/include/asm/io.h | 12 ++++++++----
arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h | 12 ++++++++----
arch/s390/include/asm/io.h | 5 -----
arch/sparc/include/asm/io.h | 9 +++++++++
arch/sparc/include/asm/io_32.h | 3 ---
arch/sparc/include/asm/io_64.h | 22 ++++++++++------------
arch/tile/include/asm/io.h | 4 ++++
arch/x86/include/asm/io.h | 10 +++++++---
arch/xtensa/include/asm/io.h | 7 -------
include/asm-generic/io.h | 10 ++++++++++
20 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
--
1.9.2
next reply other threads:[~2014-05-22 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-22 16:47 Will Deacon [this message]
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 01/18] asm-generic: io: implement relaxed accessor macros as conditional wrappers Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 02/18] microblaze: io: remove dummy relaxed accessor macros Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 03/18] s390: io: remove dummy relaxed accessor macros for reads Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 04/18] xtensa: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 05/18] alpha: io: implement relaxed accessor macros for writes Will Deacon
2014-05-22 18:15 ` Richard Henderson
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 06/18] frv: io: implement dummy " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 07/18] cris: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 08/18] ia64: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 09/18] m32r: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 10/18] m68k: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 11/18] mn10300: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 12/18] parisc: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 13/18] powerpc: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 14/18] sparc: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 18:18 ` Sam Ravnborg
2014-05-22 18:18 ` Sam Ravnborg
2014-05-23 14:38 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-23 14:38 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-30 0:10 ` David Miller
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 15/18] tile: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 16/18] x86: " Will Deacon
2014-05-22 17:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-23 14:46 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-23 14:46 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-23 14:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-23 14:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-23 14:57 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-23 15:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-23 15:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-23 15:34 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-23 15:34 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-23 15:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-23 15:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-23 15:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-23 16:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-23 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-23 16:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-05-23 16:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 17/18] documentation: memory-barriers: clarify relaxed io accessor semantics Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` [PATCH v2 18/18] asm-generic: io: define relaxed accessor macros unconditionally Will Deacon
2014-05-22 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-25 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-27 19:32 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-27 20:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-27 20:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-27 20:32 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-25 21:47 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-27 19:34 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-27 20:23 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-27 20:34 ` Will Deacon
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=1400777250-17335-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=broonie@linaro.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).