linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).