From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
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 409PzP5yhwzF29k
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:57:37 +1100 (AEDT)
Message-ID: <1522141019.7364.43.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: RFC on writel and writel_relaxed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
 Oliver <oohall@gmail.com>, "open list:LINUX FOR
 POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, Alexander Duyck
 <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, "Paul
 E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:56:59 +1100
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3a+zUNLjqw9CL5rYkXhJ-GMVTVnBU2XUu2f3njZfrqKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1521854626.16434.359.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <58ce5b83f40f4775bec1be8db66adb0d@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20180326165425.GA15554@ziepe.ca>
 <CAK8P3a1zeMyj+Z-y4ER4moY6Zip9EWNOinf+VnboGOrgiwbBZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180326202545.GB15554@ziepe.ca>
 <CAK8P3a3fc43ZcW626hmsd3DVcLw7hGkdUMxp7s4Rn3mdkziwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180326210951.GD15554@ziepe.ca>
 <CAK8P3a2UU1xAM0NLo7Q4-Xgo1SzY3De1uqpFudr+2ZW7nHEPmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ebb36fd4-62e2-394a-219f-686c45a6dc75@codeaurora.org>
 <1522101717.7364.14.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <20180326222756.GJ15554@ziepe.ca>
 <CAK8P3a3a+zUNLjqw9CL5rYkXhJ-GMVTVnBU2XUu2f3njZfrqKw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 09:56 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 09:01:57AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 17:46 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > 
> > I even see patches adding wmb() based on actual observed memory
> > corruption during testing on Intel:
> > 
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10177207/
> > 
> > So you think all of this is unnecessary and writel is totally strongly
> > ordered, even on multi-socket Intel?
> 
> This example adds a wmb() between two writes to a coherent DMA
> area, it is definitely required there. 

Ah you are right, I incorrectly assumed that the "prod_db" function was
an MMIO. So we do NOT have a counter example where wmb is needed on
x86, pfiew ! :-)

> I'm pretty sure I've never seen
> any bug reports pointing to a missing wmb() between memory
> and MMIO write accesses, but if you remember seeing them in the
> list, maybe you can look again for some evidence of something going
> wrong on x86 without it?

The interesting thing is that we do seem to have a whole LOT of these
spurrious wmb before writel all over the tree, I suspect because of
that incorrect recommendation in memory-barriers.txt.

We should fix that.

Cheers,
Ben.