From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com (mailapp01.imgtec.com [195.59.15.196]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715841A028C for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:33:46 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <56983054.4070807@imgtec.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:33:40 -0800 From: Leonid Yegoshin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , , "Arnd Bergmann" , , Andrew Cooper , Russell King - ARM Linux , , Stefano Stabellini , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Joe Perches , David Miller , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Ralf Baechle" , Ingo Molnar , , , Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h References: <20160112114111.GB15737@arm.com> <569565DA.2010903@imgtec.com> <20160113104516.GE25458@arm.com> <5696CF08.8080700@imgtec.com> <20160114121449.GC15828@arm.com> <5697F6D2.60409@imgtec.com> <20160114203430.GC3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56980C91.1010403@imgtec.com> <20160114212913.GF3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <569814F2.50801@imgtec.com> <20160114225510.GJ3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20160114225510.GJ3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/14/2016 02:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > OK, so it looks like Will was asking not about WRC+addr+addr, but instead > about WRC+sync+addr. (He actually asked twice about this and that too but skip this) > I am guessing that the manual's "Older instructions which must be globally > performed when the SYNC instruction completes" provides the equivalent > of ARM/Power A-cumulativity, which can be thought of as transitivity > backwards in time. This leads me to believe that your smp_mb() needs > to use SYNC rather than SYNC_MB, as was the subject of earlier spirited > discussion in this thread. Don't be fooled here by words "ordered" and "completed" - it is HW design items and actually written poorly. Just assume that SYNC_MB is absolutely the same as SYNC for any CPU and coherent device (besides performance). The difference can be in non-coherent devices because SYNC actually tries to make a barrier for them too. In some SoCs it is just the same because there is no need to barrier a non-coherent device (device register access usually strictly ordered... if there is no bridge in between). > > Suppose you have something like this: > ... > Does your hardware guarantee that it is not possible for all of r0, > r1, r2, and r3 to be equal to zero at the end of the test, assuming > that a, b, c, and d are all initially zero, and the four functions > above run concurrently? It is assumed to be so from Arch point of view. HW bugs are possible, of course. > Another (more academic) case is this one, with x and y initially zero: > > ... > Does SYNC_MB() prohibit r1 == 1 && r2 == 0 && r3 == 1 && r4 == 0? It is assumed to be so from Arch point of view. HW bugs are possible, of course. Note: I am not sure about ANY past MIPS R2 CPU because that stuff is implemented some time but nobody made it in Linux kernel (it was used by some vendor for non-Linux system). For that reason my patch for lightweight SYNCs has an option - implement it or implement a generic SYNC. It is possible that some vendor did it in different way but nobody knows or test it. But as a minimum - SYNC must be implemented in spinlocks/atomics/bitops, in recent P5600 it is proven that read can pass write in atomics. MIPS R6 is a different story, I verified lightweight SYNCs from the beginning and it also should use SYNCs. - Leonid.