From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] ARM: Change the mandatory barriers implementation
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:43:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1267199030.14703.28.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100223180342.GA26434@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:03 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:02:35PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > I'm not entirely convinced by the part of your patch which changes the
> > > SMP barriers yet. For instance, some drivers contain:
> > >
> > > /* We need for force the visibility of tp->intr_mask
> > > * for other CPUs, as we can loose an MSI interrupt
> > > * and potentially wait for a retransmit timeout if we don't.
> > > * The posted write to IntrMask is safe, as it will
> > > * eventually make it to the chip and we won't loose anything
> > > * until it does.
> > > */
> > > tp->intr_mask = 0xffff;
> > > smp_wmb();
> > > RTL_W16(IntrMask, tp->intr_event);
> > >
> > > The second write is a write to hardware, and thus would be to a device
> > > region. The first is a write to a memory structure.
> > >
> > > It seems to me given your description in the patch, that having smp_wmb()
> > > be a dmb(), rather than a wmb() would be insufficient here.
[...]
> Given what you've said, it would appear that smp_wmb() needs to be a
> wmb() in the SMP case, to ensure that the write to intr_mask is
> visible to other CPUs before the interrupt mask write hits the
> peripheral.
>
> So, that leads us back to the:
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> #define smp_mb() barrier()
> #define smp_rmb() barrier()
> #define smp_wmb() barrier()
> #else
> #define smp_mb() mb()
> #define smp_rmb() rmb()
> #define smp_wmb() wmb()
> #endif
A better implementation would be this:
#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
#define smp_mb() barrier()
#define smp_rmb() barrier()
#define smp_wmb() barrier()
#else
#define smp_mb() dsb()
#define smp_rmb() mb()
#define smp_wmb() dsb()
#endif
Since the mb() may have other effects like draining the L2 write buffer
which is definitely not needed for the SMP barriers.
Anyway, the above change to smp_*mb() would probably have a performance
impact especially with spinlocks.
I can see that the driver situation you described appears in other
drivers as well. Whether this is a correct usage model I can't tell. It
may be worth going with this on linux-arch. PowerPC for example uses a
light barrier for the smp_wmb() case which doesn't ensure ordering
between accesses to normal vs I/O memory.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-26 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-23 11:01 [PATCH 1/4] ARM: Change the mandatory barriers implementation Catalin Marinas
2010-02-23 11:10 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-23 12:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2010-02-23 12:30 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-23 15:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2010-02-23 15:24 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-23 16:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2010-02-23 18:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-23 18:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2010-03-01 3:37 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-02-26 15:43 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2010-03-01 3:44 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-02-23 12:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2010-02-23 12:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-23 11:35 ` Shilimkar, Santosh
2010-02-23 11:41 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-23 17:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-23 17:58 ` Catalin Marinas
2010-02-23 18:04 ` Catalin Marinas
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=1267199030.14703.28.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.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).