public inbox for linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

      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