From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jesse.barnes@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2069ADDE9F
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:06:29 +1000 (EST)
From: Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@intel.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: wmb vs mmiowb
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:02:38 -0700
References: <20070822045714.GD26374@wotan.suse.de>
	<200708221202.12403.jesse.barnes@intel.com>
	<20070823022043.GB18788@wotan.suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070823022043.GB18788@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <200708231002.39429.jesse.barnes@intel.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

> > Yeah, they keep threatening to use this instead, but I'm not sure
> > how easy it would be.  Also they may have more devices/drivers to
> > worry about than sn2, so maybe changing over would mean too much
> > driver debugging (well auditing really since it's not that hard to
> > know where to put them).  Irix actually had an io_unlock() routine
> > that did this implicitly, but iirc that was shot down for Linux...
>
> Why was it shot down? Seems like a pretty good idea to me ;)

Well, like Linus said, it had some significant downsides (though I think 
Irix had fewer lock types, so the multiplicative effect wasn't so bad 
there).

> I'm clueless when it comes to drivers, but I see a lot of mmiowb()
> that are not paired with spin_unlock. How are these obvious? (ie.
> what is the pattern?) It looks like some might be lockless FIFOs (or
> maybe I'm just not aware of where the locks are). Can you just
> quickly illustrate the problem being solved?

Wow, it certainly has proliferated since it was added to the tree. :)

I didn't audit all the uses, but it seems like many of them get it 
right, i.e. mmiowb() before spin_unlock() where PIO has been done.  I'd 
have to look carefully to see whether lockless usages are correct, it's 
likely they're not.

Jesse