From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: <20190222173834.GC32113@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20190211172948.3322-1-will.deacon@arm.com> <20190213172047.GH6346@brain-police> <20190218165007.GC16713@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <20190219161334.GA28803@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <87k1htwtis.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k1htwtis.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-arch , Linux List Kernel Mailing , "Paul E. McKenney" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , Andrea Parri , Daniel Lustig , David Howells , Alan Stern , Tony Luck , paulus@samba.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:22:03PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Will Deacon writes: > > [+more ppc folks] > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:50:12PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:27:09AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > Note that even if mmiowb() is expensive (and I don't think that's > >> > actually even the case on ia64), you can - and probably should - do > >> > what PowerPC does. > >> > > >> > Doing an IO barrier on PowerPC is insanely expensive, but they solve > >> > that simply track the whole "have I done any IO" manually. It's not > >> > even that expensive, it just uses a percpu flag. > >> > > >> > (Admittedly, PowerPC makes it less obvious that it's a percpu variable > >> > because it's actually in the special "paca" region that is like a > >> > hyper-local percpu area). > > > > [...] > > > >> > But we *could* first just do the mmiowb() unconditionally in the ia64 > >> > unlocking code, and then see if anybody notices? > >> > >> I'll hack this up as a starting point. We can always try to be clever later > >> on if it's deemed necessary. > > > > Ok, so I started hacking this up in core code with the percpu flag (since > > riscv apparently needs it), but I've now realised that I don't understand > > how the PowerPC trick works after all. Consider the following: > > > > spin_lock(&foo); // io_sync = 0 > > outb(42, port); // io_sync = 1 > > spin_lock(&bar); // io_sync = 0 > > ... > > spin_unlock(&bar); > > spin_unlock(&foo); > > > > The inner lock could even happen in an irq afaict, but we'll end up skipping > > the mmiowb()/sync because the io_sync flag is unconditionally cleared by > > spin_lock(). Fixing this is complicated by the fact that I/O writes can be > > performed in preemptible context with no locks held, so we can end up > > spuriously setting the io_sync flag for arbitrary CPUs, hence the desire > > to clear it in spin_lock(). > > > > If the paca entry was more than a byte, we could probably track that a > > spinlock is held and then avoid clearing the flag prematurely, but I have > > a feeling that I'm missing something. Anybody know how this is supposed to > > work? > > I don't think you're missing anything :/ Ok, well that's slightly reasurring for me :) > Having two flags like you suggest could work. Or you could just make the > flag into a nesting counter. My work-in-progress asm-generic version uses a counter, but I can't squeese that into your u8 paca entry. I'll cc you when I post the patches, so perhaps you can hack up the ppc side. > Or do you just remove the clearing from spin_lock()? > > That gets you: > > spin_lock(&foo); > outb(42, port); // io_sync = 1 > spin_lock(&bar); > ... > spin_unlock(&bar); // mb(); io_sync = 0 > spin_unlock(&foo); > > > And I/O outside of the lock case: > > outb(42, port); // io_sync = 1 > > spin_lock(&bar); > ... > spin_unlock(&bar); // mb(); io_sync = 0 > > > Extra barriers are not ideal, but the odd spurious mb() might be > preferable to doing another compare and branch or increment in every > spin_lock()? Up to you. I'm working on the assumption that these barriers are insanely expensive, otherwise we'd just upgrade spin_unlock() and work on things that are more fun instead ;) Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:37714 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725986AbfBVRij (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:38:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:38:34 +0000 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section Message-ID: <20190222173834.GC32113@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20190211172948.3322-1-will.deacon@arm.com> <20190213172047.GH6346@brain-police> <20190218165007.GC16713@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <20190219161334.GA28803@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <87k1htwtis.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k1htwtis.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-arch , Linux List Kernel Mailing , "Paul E. McKenney" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , Andrea Parri , Daniel Lustig , David Howells , Alan Stern , Tony Luck , paulus@samba.org Message-ID: <20190222173834.LZQc4Qa0UVseAAWVxpqwF3Q76rS7KZhAN9I_OQH6-rE@z> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:22:03PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Will Deacon writes: > > [+more ppc folks] > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:50:12PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:27:09AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > Note that even if mmiowb() is expensive (and I don't think that's > >> > actually even the case on ia64), you can - and probably should - do > >> > what PowerPC does. > >> > > >> > Doing an IO barrier on PowerPC is insanely expensive, but they solve > >> > that simply track the whole "have I done any IO" manually. It's not > >> > even that expensive, it just uses a percpu flag. > >> > > >> > (Admittedly, PowerPC makes it less obvious that it's a percpu variable > >> > because it's actually in the special "paca" region that is like a > >> > hyper-local percpu area). > > > > [...] > > > >> > But we *could* first just do the mmiowb() unconditionally in the ia64 > >> > unlocking code, and then see if anybody notices? > >> > >> I'll hack this up as a starting point. We can always try to be clever later > >> on if it's deemed necessary. > > > > Ok, so I started hacking this up in core code with the percpu flag (since > > riscv apparently needs it), but I've now realised that I don't understand > > how the PowerPC trick works after all. Consider the following: > > > > spin_lock(&foo); // io_sync = 0 > > outb(42, port); // io_sync = 1 > > spin_lock(&bar); // io_sync = 0 > > ... > > spin_unlock(&bar); > > spin_unlock(&foo); > > > > The inner lock could even happen in an irq afaict, but we'll end up skipping > > the mmiowb()/sync because the io_sync flag is unconditionally cleared by > > spin_lock(). Fixing this is complicated by the fact that I/O writes can be > > performed in preemptible context with no locks held, so we can end up > > spuriously setting the io_sync flag for arbitrary CPUs, hence the desire > > to clear it in spin_lock(). > > > > If the paca entry was more than a byte, we could probably track that a > > spinlock is held and then avoid clearing the flag prematurely, but I have > > a feeling that I'm missing something. Anybody know how this is supposed to > > work? > > I don't think you're missing anything :/ Ok, well that's slightly reasurring for me :) > Having two flags like you suggest could work. Or you could just make the > flag into a nesting counter. My work-in-progress asm-generic version uses a counter, but I can't squeese that into your u8 paca entry. I'll cc you when I post the patches, so perhaps you can hack up the ppc side. > Or do you just remove the clearing from spin_lock()? > > That gets you: > > spin_lock(&foo); > outb(42, port); // io_sync = 1 > spin_lock(&bar); > ... > spin_unlock(&bar); // mb(); io_sync = 0 > spin_unlock(&foo); > > > And I/O outside of the lock case: > > outb(42, port); // io_sync = 1 > > spin_lock(&bar); > ... > spin_unlock(&bar); // mb(); io_sync = 0 > > > Extra barriers are not ideal, but the odd spurious mb() might be > preferable to doing another compare and branch or increment in every > spin_lock()? Up to you. I'm working on the assumption that these barriers are insanely expensive, otherwise we'd just upgrade spin_unlock() and work on things that are more fun instead ;) Will