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 409TDD275qzF2BK
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:23:56 +1100 (AEDT)
Message-ID: <1522149801.7364.49.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>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, 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 22:23:21 +1100
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0gCYjw78snni_1Jkk5uA5a-j0x-XZDrN=RaZfXctOSoA@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>
 <1522141019.7364.43.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <CAK8P3a0gCYjw78snni_1Jkk5uA5a-j0x-XZDrN=RaZfXctOSoA@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 11:44 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Maybe the problem is just that it's so counter-intuitive that we don't
> need that barrier in Linux, when the hardware does need one on some
> architectures.
> 
> How about we define a barrier type instruction specifically for this
> purpose, something like wmb_before_mmio() and have all architectures
> define that to an empty macro?

This is exactly what wmb() is about and exactly what Linux rejected
back in the day (and in hindsight I agree with him).

> That way, having correct code using wmb_before_mmio() will not
> trigger an incorrect review comment that leads to extra wmb(). ;-)

Ah, you mean have an empty macro that will always be empty on all
architectures just to fool people ? :-)

Not sure that will fly ... I think we just need to be documenting that
stuff better and not have incorrect examples. Also a sweep to remove
some useless ones like the one in e1000e would help.

Cheers,
Ben.