Re: LFENCE instruction (was: [rfc][patch 3/3] x86: optimise barriers)

Nick Piggin
2007-10-17T12:24:46Z

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:30:32AM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > You already must not place any data structures into WC memory --- for
> > > example, spinlocks wouldn't work there.
> >
> > What do you mean "already"?
>
> I mean "in current kernel" (I checked it in 2.6.22)

Ahh, that's not "current kernel", though ;)

4071c718555d955a35e9651f77086096ad87d498

> > If we already have drivers loading data from
> > WC memory, then rmb() needs to order them, whether or not they actually
> > need it. If that were prohibitively costly, then we'd introduce a new
> > barrier which does not order WC memory, right?
> >
> >
> > > wmb() also won't work on WC
> > > memory, because it assumes that writes are ordered.
> >
> > You mean the one defined like this:
> > #define wmb() asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
> > ? If it assumed writes are ordered, then it would just be a barrier().
>
> You read wrong part of the include file. Really, it is
> (2.6.22,include/asm-i386/system.h):
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
> #define wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence",
> X86_FEATURE_XMM)
> #else
> #define wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("": : :"memory")
> #endif
>
> CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE is dependent on MWINCHIP3D || MWINCHIP2 || MWINCHIPC6
> --- so on Intel and AMD, it is really just barrier().
>
> So drivers can't assume that wmb() works on write-combining memory.

Drivers should be able to assume that wmb() orders _everything_ (except
some whacky Altix thing, which I really want to fold under wmb at some
point anyway).

So I decided that old x86 semantics isn't right, and now it really is a
lock op / sfence everywhere.