From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rpjday@crashcourse.ca,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove readq()/writeq() on 32-bit
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:06:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ada8wl0iro4.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A0B30D0.4060806@garzik.org> (Jeff Garzik's message of "Wed, 13 May 2009 16:42:56 -0400")
> To repeat what has already been stated, each case was re-evaluated:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124103527326835&w=2
>
> Roland's patch was acked, apparently, _in spite of_ the commonly
> accepted readq() definition already being in use!
>
> Thusfar, I see two things:
>
> (1) years of history has shown that non-atomic readq/writeq on 32-bit
> platforms has been sufficient, based on testing and experience. In
> fact, in niu's case, a common readq/writeq would have PREVENTED a bug.
But the fact that the 32-bit x86 define would have worked for niu is
pure luck -- if the clear-on-read bits had been in the other half of the
register in question, then it would have caused a bug. And I really
don't trust all ASIC designers writing RTL to think about which half of
a 64-bit register is going to be read first.
To me, the point is that the current situation of having the defines for
32-bit x86 has zero benefit -- not one driver-specific definition can be
removed, because there are other 32-bit architectures to worry about.
So we just added another copy of the compatibility wrapper, in a not
particularly good location -- we certainly don't want to have the same
defines copied into every 32-bit architecture's <asm/io.h> header.
And the risk introduced is not zero -- very few devices have 64-bit
registers and very few drivers use readq or writeq, but perhaps as
end-to-end 64-bit buses become more prevalent with PCIe, we may see
more. And it's certainly the case that emulation 64-bit register
operations by doing to 32-bit operations on the register halves carries
a non-zero risk of making the hardware do something wacky.
So to me the it's pretty clear: the current situation has benefit == 0
&& risk > 0, so we should revert to the previous situation until someone
implements something more complete like hpa's opt-in header scheme.
- R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-13 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-19 19:45 arch/x86/Kconfig selects invalid HAVE_READQ, HAVE_WRITEQ vars Robert P. J. Day
2009-04-19 21:12 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-19 21:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-19 22:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-19 22:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-20 0:56 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-20 2:08 ` Robert Hancock
2009-04-20 0:53 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-20 1:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-20 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-20 14:47 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-04-20 16:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 8:33 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-04-21 8:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 8:57 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-04-21 15:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-21 17:07 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-21 17:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-21 17:23 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-21 19:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-21 21:11 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-21 21:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-22 0:31 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 19:05 ` [PATCH] x86: Remove readq()/writeq() on 32-bit Roland Dreier
2009-04-29 5:12 ` David Miller
2009-04-29 11:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 12:10 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-04-29 17:25 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-29 19:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 5:32 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-13 20:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-13 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 23:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 0:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-14 7:19 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-15 23:44 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-17 7:12 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-17 8:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-21 11:35 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-21 11:49 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-13 20:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 21:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-13 21:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 21:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 21:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-13 22:06 ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2009-05-13 22:29 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-04-29 17:21 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-22 0:27 ` arch/x86/Kconfig selects invalid HAVE_READQ, HAVE_WRITEQ vars David Miller
2009-04-22 0:25 ` David Miller
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=ada8wl0iro4.fsf@cisco.com \
--to=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=h.mitake@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rpjday@crashcourse.ca \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).