From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: paulus@samba.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
akpm@osdl.org, segher@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 05:55:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45028F87.7040603@garzik.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060909.023405.71099525.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 13:02:27 +1000
>
>> I suspect the best thing at this point is to move the sync in writeX()
>> before the store, as you suggest, and add an "eieio" before the load
>> in readX(). That does mean that we are then relying on driver writers
>> putting in the mmiowb() between a writeX() and a spin_unlock, but at
>> least that is documented.
>
> I think not matching what PC systems do is, at least from one
> perspective, a very bad engineering decision for 2 reasons.
>
> 1) You will be chasing down these kinds of problems forever,
> you will fix tg3 today, but tomorrow it will be another driver
> for which you will invest weeks of delicate debugging that
> could have been spent on much more useful coding
>
> 2) Driver authors will not get these memory barriers right,
> you can say they will because it will be "documented" but
> that does not change reality which is that driver folks
> will get simple interfaces right but these memory barriers
> are relatively advanced concepts, which they thus will get
> wrong half the time
>
> Sure it's more expensive, but at least on sparc64 I'd much rather
> spend my time working on more interesting things than "today's
> missing memory barrier" :-)
>
> I also don't want to see all of these memory barriers crapping up our
> drivers. I do a MMIO, then I access a descriptor, or vice versa, then
> those should be ordered because they are both technically accesses to
> "physical device state". Having to say this explicitly seems really
> the wrong thing to do, at least to me.
Agreed.
As (I think) BenH mentioned in another email, the normal way Linux
handles these interfaces is for the primary API (readX, writeX) to be
strongly ordered, strongly coherent, etc. And then there is a relaxed
version without barriers and syncs, for the smart guys who know what
they're doing. We used do this for fbdev drivers, I dunno what happened
to that interface.
We want to make it tough for driver writers to screw up, unless they are
really trying...
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-09 9:55 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 [this message]
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
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=45028F87.7040603@garzik.org \
--to=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--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