From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
jeff@garzik.org, paulus@samba.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org,
segher@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:32:10 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1158010331.3879.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200609111108.18138.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 11:08 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:00 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > If we accept this, I don't think we're much better off than we are
> > > currently (not that I have a problem with that). That is, many
> > > drivers
> > > would still need to be fixed up.
> >
> > Not necessarily if you introduce the trick of doing the mmiowb() in
> > spin_unlock when a per-cpu flag has been set previously by writel... not
> > sure if it's worth tho.
>
> True, though again this would add a branch to writeX.
No, it adds a cacheable store to writeX and a branch to spin_unlock
> Sure, that's where one would typically use it, but it really is a memory
> barrier...
I prefer having separate semantics for it so people understand it better
but I may be wrong :)
> That's because it *is* a barrier. I don't think it's any harder to understand
> then regular memory barriers for example. It's just that you'd typically use
> it in conjunction with locks to ensure proper device access.
That's why I prefer defining it as a MMIO + lock barrier.
> Ok, that's fine, though I think you'd only want the very weak semantics (as
> provided by your __raw* routines) on write combined memory typically?
Well, that and memory with no side effects (like frame buffers)
> > I'm very much against your terminology. It's -not- an IO to IO barrier.
> > It's an IO to lock barrier. Really. IO to IO is something else. ordering
> > of IOs between CPUs has absolutely no meaning outside of the context of
> > locked regions in any case.
>
> But it *is* MMIO vs. MMIO. There's confusion because your __raw* routines
> don't even guarantee same CPU ordering, while mmiowb() is solely intended for
> inter-CPU ordering.
>
> But as you say, the most common (maybe only) use model for it is to make sure
> critical sections protecting device access behave correctly, so I don't have
> a problem tying it to locks somehow.
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-11 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-09 2:03 Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM Paul Mackerras
2006-09-09 2:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-09-09 3:02 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-09-09 3:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-09-09 7:24 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-09 9:34 ` David Miller
2006-09-09 9:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-09-09 10:08 ` David Miller
2006-09-10 17:18 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-10 19:35 ` Alan Cox
2006-09-10 21:25 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-10 22:23 ` Alan Cox
2006-09-10 22:18 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 13:19 ` Jes Sorensen
2006-09-10 23:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11 0:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 0:34 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11 1:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 1:13 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11 1:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 9:02 ` Alan Cox
2006-09-11 9:23 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 0:25 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11 0:54 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11 1:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 1:48 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11 3:53 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 18:12 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11 1:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-11 18:08 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-11 21:32 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2006-09-10 20:01 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-11 13:21 ` David Miller
2006-09-11 14:17 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-12 0:32 ` David Miller
2006-09-12 0:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 16:47 ` Segher Boessenkool
2006-09-12 0:54 ` Roland Dreier
2006-09-09 11:16 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-09-09 7:23 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-09 9:38 ` David Miller
2006-09-09 15:09 ` Alan Cox
2006-09-10 17:19 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-09-10 17:35 ` Michael Buesch
2006-09-10 17:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-09-10 18:02 ` Michael Buesch
2006-09-09 15:08 ` Alan Cox
2006-09-09 18:34 ` Auke Kok
2006-09-09 19:10 ` Patrick McFarland
2006-09-09 15:06 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-11 5:03 Michael Chan
2006-09-11 5:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 4:30 Albert Cahalan
2006-09-12 5:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 6:04 ` Albert Cahalan
2006-09-12 6:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 7:09 ` Albert Cahalan
2006-09-12 7:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-09-12 7:21 ` Albert Cahalan
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=1158010331.3879.56.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--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