Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

Trent Piepho
2008-06-03T21:59:25Z

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 12:57:56PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:47:00AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linus: on x86, memory operations to wc and wc+ memory are not ordered
>>>>>> with one another, or operations to other memory types (ie. load/load
>>>>>> and store/store reordering is allowed). Also, as you know, store/load
>>>>>> reordering is explicitly allowed as well, which covers all memory
>>>>>> types. So perhaps it is not quite true to say readl/writel is strongly
>>>>>> ordered by default even on x86. You would have to put in some
>>>>>> mfence instructions in them to make it so.
>>>>
>>>> So on x86, these could be re-ordered?
>>>>
>>>> writel(START_OPERATION, CONTROL_REGISTER);
>>>> status = readl(STATUS_REGISTER);
>>>
>>> You wouldn't ask for write-combining memory mapping for control or
>>> status registers.
>>
>> But Nick said, "store/load reordering is explicitly allowed as well, which
>> covers *all* memory types."
>
> Then Nick is confused. PCI only defines one way to flush posted writes
> to a device -- doing a read from it. There's no way that reads can
> be allowed to pass writes (unless you've asked for it, like with write
> combining).

But that requirement is for the PCI bridge, isn't it? It doesn't matter if
the bridge will flush all posted writes before allowing a read if the CPU
decides to give the bridge the read before the write. A powerpc CPU will
certainly do this if you don't take any steps like telling it the memory is
uncachable and guarded. I didn't think it was allowed on x86 (except with
WC), but Nick seemed to say it was.