From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:57:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7dc0bb83644f4cd44b4810a99d0003a1@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070822035539.GB26374@wotan.suse.de>
>> The powerpc kernel needs to have full sync insns in every I/O
>> accessor in order to enforce all the ordering rules Linux demands.
>> It's a bloody shame, but the alternative would be to make the
>> barriers lots more expensive. A third alternative would be to
>
> Well lots more expensive compared to what you have now. But what
> you have now is like having those expensive barriers between
> *every* io access.
Yeah. But I/O reads are very expensive anyway, and the barriers
are used for more than just I/O ordering.
I/O writes are a different thing; ideally, they would use only
eieio, if anything at all.
Maybe the tradeoff isn't optimal. The I/O primitives didn't have
all those "sync"s in there before, they got added because some bad
interaction with spinlocks was discovered, if my memory isn't failing
me.
>> have barrier ops that do not order everything, but just A vs. B
>> for various choices of A and B (coherent accesses, MMIO accesses,
>> etc.)
>
> The non-smp_ variant is supposed to order everything, AFAIK. Maybe
> you could get more fancy and have PIO vs MMIO etc etc. but it looks
> like this whole area is in a pretty sticky state anyway so let's
> not think about that.
*Thinking* about it is fun. Trying to get the code merged would be
a different thing ;-)
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-23 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-21 2:11 [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix Nick Piggin
2007-08-21 2:16 ` [patch 1/2] powerpc: smp_wmb speedup Nick Piggin
2007-08-21 2:21 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-21 19:07 ` [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix Joel Schopp
2007-08-21 19:43 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-21 21:42 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-08-22 1:16 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-22 3:29 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-22 3:55 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-23 17:57 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2007-08-24 2:47 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-22 3:15 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-22 3:33 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-22 4:05 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-23 17:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-05-21 14:10 Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 15:27 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-21 15:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 15:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-23 2:14 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-23 4:40 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-23 4:53 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-23 5:48 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-23 6:40 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-26 1:38 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7dc0bb83644f4cd44b4810a99d0003a1@kernel.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).