From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 409B3R4rSnzF251 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:00:19 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1522108780.7364.24.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: RFC on writel and writel_relaxed From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Sinan Kaya , Arnd Bergmann , David Laight , Oliver , "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Alexander Duyck , Will Deacon , "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:59:40 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20180326225046.GL15554@ziepe.ca> References: <20180326165425.GA15554@ziepe.ca> <20180326202545.GB15554@ziepe.ca> <20180326210951.GD15554@ziepe.ca> <1522101717.7364.14.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20180326222756.GJ15554@ziepe.ca> <1522103771.7364.20.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20180326225046.GL15554@ziepe.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 16:50 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 09:36:11AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 16:27 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > Otherwise almost all drivers out there are broken which I very much > > > > doubt :-) > > > > > > But.. Sinan is right, you look anywhere in the driver tree and you > > > find stuff like this: > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_txrx.c > > > > > > /* Force memory writes to complete before letting h/w > > > * know there are new descriptors to fetch. > > > */ > > > wmb(); > > > > > > > > > It is *systemic* > > > > Yes, because they all copied e1000e :-) If you look at the comment in > > there, it does say it's only for weakly ordered archs such as ia64, and > > even then, probably predates Linus strong statement on the matter. > > Hahah, sure I'll buy that.. > > But still, if this really is the case, a *strong* statement in > barriers.txt to that effect (and not an example demanding the wmb()!) > would be very helpful for those of us that have to review driver code! I agree, and that Mellanox bug you pointed me to seems to indicate that this may not even be true on x86 anymore ... I think we might need to revisit this properly... Cheers, Ben.