From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org,
linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: Ordering between PCI config space writes and MMIO reads?
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:22:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061025182252.GA13967@mellanox.co.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061025141859.GC5591@parisc-linux.org>
Quoting r. Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>:
> Subject: Re: Ordering between PCI config space writes and MMIO reads?
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0600, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > Can someone provide a quote of the PCI Local bus spec that allows this?
> > (Or at least a reference to a spec version and section number)
>
> PCI-PCI bridges are allowed to do it. If you look in table E-1 of PCI
> 2.3, or table 8-3 of PCI-X 2.0, you'll see that a Posted Memory Write
> can pass a Delayed Write Request (or in PCI-X, a Memory Write can pass a
> Split Write Request).
>
> So mmiowb() will solve the problem for Altix, but leave everybody else
> vulnerable. I actually don't see a way of forcing the config write to
> complete before a memory write -- everything is allowed to pass a config
> write, even a config read. I initially thought "But only a crack monkey
> would implement a system where a config read could pass a config write",
> but the spec explains that:
>
> In most PCI-X implementations, Split Requests are managed in separate
> buffers from Split Completions, so Split Requests naturally pass Split
> Completions. However, no deadlocks occur if Split Completions block
> Split Requests.
>
> So all this code that checks to see if a write had an effect is unsafe.
> I'm a little perturbed by this. It means the only way to reliably
> distinguish between a write that hasn't taken effect yet and a bit (say,
> MWI) the device hasn't implemented is to do a memory access to the
> device. Which is hard when you're trying to program the BARs.
>
> I suppose this hasn't bitten us before in, what, 7 years of PCI-X, so
> it can't be *that* common a thing for bridges to do. And we would have
> noticed the BAR sizing code going wrong (as it does config write
> followed immediately by config read), so maybe implementations aren't as
> crackful as the PCI spec seems to permit them to be.
>
> I find it really hard to believe the PCI committee have done something
> this stupid. There must be another rule somewhere that I'm missing.
I think typically CPUs stall until a non-posted operation completes.
And since config writes are non posted,
pci_config_write_...
write ....
does not *start* the write until config write has completed.
So there's only a single outstanding config operation and that's why
there's never any re-ordering, without any need for flushes.
Your Altix system seems the weird one here in that CPU actually
treats config writes as posted and does not wait for their completion.
I wander whether you can do a bus lock or something and force
waiting till the completion.
This would be much cleaner than trying to fix all drivers.
--
MST
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-25 18:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-24 19:13 Ordering between PCI config space writes and MMIO reads? Roland Dreier
2006-10-24 19:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-10-24 21:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-10-24 21:51 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-24 22:12 ` John Partridge
2006-10-24 22:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-10-24 22:43 ` David Miller
2006-10-25 14:15 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-31 19:02 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-31 19:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-31 19:53 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-31 19:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-10-31 20:28 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-31 20:34 ` Richard B. Johnson
2006-10-31 20:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-10-31 22:30 ` Roland Dreier
2006-11-01 16:27 ` John Partridge
2006-11-01 16:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-11-01 17:08 ` John Partridge
2006-11-01 17:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-11-01 23:04 ` David Miller
2006-11-02 1:08 ` John Partridge
2006-10-31 20:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-24 22:59 ` [openib-general] " Jason Gunthorpe
2006-10-25 14:04 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-24 23:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-24 23:27 ` Jack Steiner
2006-10-25 14:05 ` Roland Dreier
2006-11-02 3:05 ` Jeremy Higdon
2006-10-24 21:01 ` [openib-general] " JWM
2006-10-24 21:24 ` Alan Cox
2006-10-24 21:29 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-24 21:37 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-10-25 6:30 ` Grant Grundler
2006-10-25 14:11 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-25 14:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-10-25 17:15 ` [openib-general] " Jason Gunthorpe
2006-10-25 18:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
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=20061025182252.GA13967@mellanox.co.il \
--to=mst@mellanox.co.il \
--cc=grundler@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=openib-general@openib.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
/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