From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>,
akpm@osdl.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #2]
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:55:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603081655.13672.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17423.30789.214209.462657@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Wednesday, March 8, 2006 4:35 pm, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> David Howells writes:
> > On NUMA PowerPC, should mmiowb() be a SYNC or an EIEIO instruction
> > then? Those do inter-component synchronisation.
>
> We actually have quite heavy synchronization in read*/write* on PPC,
> and mmiowb can safely be a no-op. It would be nice to be able to have
> lighter-weight synchronization, but I'm sure we would see lots of
> subtle driver bugs cropping up if we did. write* do a full memory
> barrier (sync) after the store, and read* explicitly wait for the data
> to come back before.
>
> If you ask me, the need for mmiowb on some platforms merely shows that
> those platforms' implementations of spinlocks and read*/write* are
> buggy...
Or maybe they just wanted to keep them fast. I don't know why you
compromised so much in your implementation of read/write and
lock/unlock, but given how expensive synchronization is, I'd think it
would be better in the long run to make the barrier types explicit (or
at least a subset of them) to maximize performance. The rules for using
the barriers really aren't that bad... for mmiowb() you basically want
to do it before an unlock in any critical section where you've done PIO
writes.
Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't confusion about existing
barriers. There was a long thread a few years ago (Jes worked it all
out, iirc) regarding some subtle memory ordering bugs in the tty layer
that ended up being due to ia64's very weak spin_unlock ordering
guarantees (one way memory barrier only), but I think that's mainly an
artifact of how ill defined the semantics of the various arch specific
routines are in some cases.
That's why I suggested in an earlier thread that you enumerate all the
memory ordering combinations on ppc and see if we can't define them all.
Then David can roll the implicit ones up into his document, or we can
add the appropriate new operations to the kernel. Really getting
barriers right shouldn't be much harder than getting DMA mapping right,
from a driver writers POV (though people often get that wrong I guess).
Jesse
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-09 0:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-07 17:40 [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers David Howells
2006-03-07 10:34 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-07 18:30 ` David Howells
2006-03-07 11:13 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-07 19:24 ` David Howells
2006-03-07 18:46 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-07 19:23 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-03-07 11:57 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-07 20:01 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-07 21:14 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-03-07 21:24 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-08 0:36 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 0:35 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-07 18:40 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-07 18:54 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-03-07 19:06 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-03-07 19:15 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-03-07 19:33 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-07 20:09 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 0:32 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 8:25 ` Duncan Sands
2006-03-08 22:06 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-08 22:24 ` David S. Miller
2006-03-08 22:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-08 22:42 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 2:07 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-08 3:10 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-08 3:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-08 12:34 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 16:40 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-03-08 7:41 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-08 13:19 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 21:49 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-08 22:05 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 14:37 ` [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #2] David Howells
2006-03-08 14:55 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 15:41 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-03-08 17:19 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 22:10 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-08 23:08 ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2006-03-09 1:01 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 16:02 ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2006-03-08 17:04 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 17:36 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 18:35 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 18:45 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 18:59 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 11:38 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-08 19:08 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 19:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-08 19:31 ` David Howells
2006-03-09 0:35 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 0:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-09 1:08 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 1:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-09 2:38 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-09 3:45 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 4:36 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-09 7:41 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 5:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-09 12:27 ` David Howells
2006-03-09 11:44 ` Michael Buesch
2006-03-09 4:34 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-09 4:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 10:05 ` Jes Sorensen
2006-03-09 0:55 ` Jesse Barnes [this message]
2006-03-09 1:57 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 4:26 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-08 19:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-03-09 0:37 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 0:59 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-09 1:36 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-09 4:18 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-08 19:54 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-08 20:02 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 22:01 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-08 22:23 ` David S. Miller
2006-03-08 19:37 ` [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #3] David Howells
2006-03-09 14:01 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 16:18 ` [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers Pavel Machek
2006-03-08 20:16 ` David Howells
2006-03-08 22:01 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-09 11:41 ` David Howells
2006-03-09 12:28 ` Alan Cox
2006-03-09 13:02 ` David Howells
2006-03-09 16:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-09 17:39 ` David Howells
2006-03-09 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-09 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
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=200603081655.13672.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--to=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox