public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] MMIO accessors & barriers documentation
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:57:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1157965071.23085.84.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1157947414.31071.386.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Ar Llu, 2006-09-11 am 14:03 +1000, ysgrifennodd Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> be interleaved when reaching the host PCI controller (and thus the

"a host PCI controller". The semantics with multiple independant PCI
busses are otherwise evil.

>  1- {read,write}{b,w,l,q} : Those accessors provide all MMIO ordering
> requirements. They are thus called "fully ordered". That is #1, #2 and
> #4 for writes and #1 and #3 for reads. 

#4 may be incredibly expensive on NUMA boxes.

>  3- memcpy_to_io, memcpy_from_io: #1 semantics apply (all MMIO loads or
> stores are performed in order to each other). #2+#4 (stores) or #3

What is "in order" here. "In ascending order of address" would be
tighter.

>  1- __{read,write}{b,w,l,q} : Those accessors provide only ordering rule
> #1. That is, MMIOs are ordered vs. each other as issued by one CPU.
> Barriers are required to ensure ordering vs. memory and vs. locks (see
> "Barriers" section). 

"Except where the underlying device is marked as cachable or
prefetchable"

Q2:
> coherency domain. If we decide not to, then an explicit barrier will
> still be needed in most drivers before spin_unlock(). This is the
> current mmiowb() barrier that I'm proposing to rename (section * III *).

I think we need mmiowb() still anyway (for __writel etc)

> If we decide to not enforce rule #4 for ordered accessors, and thus
> require the barrier before spin_unlock, the above trick, could still be
> implemented as a debug option to "detect" the lack of appropriate
> barriers.

This I think is an excellent idea.

> [* Question 3] If we decide that accessors of Class 1 do not provide rule
> #4, then this barrier is to be used for all classes of accessors, except
> maybe PIO which should always be fully ordered.

On x86 PIO (outb/inb) etc are always ordered and always stall until the
cycle completes on the device.

> [* Question 5] Should we document the rules for memory-memory barriers
> here as well ? (and give examples, like live updating of a network
> driver ring descriptor entry)
> 

Update the existing docs



  reply	other threads:[~2006-09-11  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-11  4:03 [RFC] MMIO accessors & barriers documentation Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11  8:57 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2006-09-11  9:17   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 10:07     ` Alan Cox
2006-09-11  9:59       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 17:26         ` Alan Cox
2006-09-11 21:29           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12  5:48       ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-12  5:56         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12  6:27           ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-12  7:13             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 15:19               ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-12 21:22                 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-13  0:12                   ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-13  1:34                     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 18:39 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11 21:45   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 21:54     ` Jeff Garzik
2006-09-11 22:56       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 23:08         ` Roland Dreier
2006-09-11 23:18           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 23:24         ` Jeff Garzik
2006-09-12  0:46           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 15:32           ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11 22:05     ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11 23:01       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-12  5:33 Albert Cahalan
2006-09-12  5:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt

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=1157965071.23085.84.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
    --cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.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