From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: keith.busch@intel.com (Keith Busch)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:37:26 -0700
Subject: [PATCH rfc] nvme-pci: make sure to flush sqe writes before db
 record update
In-Reply-To: <20180308172018.GA6785@ziepe.ca>
References: <20180307175626.15222-1-sagi@grimberg.me>
 <20180308155147.GD3766@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180308172018.GA6785@ziepe.ca>
Message-ID: <20180308173726.GE3766@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018@10:20:18AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018@08:51:47AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018@07:56:26PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> > > @@ -437,8 +437,14 @@ static void __nvme_submit_cmd(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq,
> > >  	if (++tail == nvmeq->q_depth)
> > >  		tail = 0;
> > >  	if (nvme_dbbuf_update_and_check_event(tail, nvmeq->dbbuf_sq_db,
> > > -					      nvmeq->dbbuf_sq_ei))
> > > +					      nvmeq->dbbuf_sq_ei)) {
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Make sure that descriptors are written before
> > > +		 * doorbell record.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		wmb();
> > >  		writel(tail, nvmeq->q_db);
> > > +	}
> > >  	nvmeq->sq_tail = tail;
> > >  }
> > 
> > If this really is necessary, we'd need this before updating the event
> > shadow registers too.
> > 
> > I'd like to understand this a bit more as we haven't done this in eight
> > years and I can't recall any issues around this section. Have we just
> > been fortunate that the problem this fixes is extraordinarily unlikely,
> > or is something else implicitly ordering within this critical section?
> 
> Well, there is a wmb() already inside
> nvme_dbbuf_update_and_check_event so any failure would only
> be related to dbbuf_sq_db being wrong when tail is written to q_db.

Ah, nvme_dbbuf_update_and_check_event is used for CQ's too, which
has no need for such a barrier. We just need it on the SQ side.