public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.



  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