From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/7] netdev: intel: Eliminate duplicate barriers on
 weakly-ordered archs
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:23:32 -0400
Message-ID: <dcbd4406-73f7-4afa-850d-5f5d9f97ab02@codeaurora.org>
References: <1521831180-25014-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org>
 <CAKgT0UcaxM8Mj9Y9fR0B+aafTm1SzTqh+gHT5ozgvyaoHvrzRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1521849496.15055.16.camel@intel.com>
 <862cdbeafb9cfd272a426b010943ffc5@codeaurora.org>
 <e3ada376-52a5-573b-33f1-9aa84af75f0d@codeaurora.org>
 <trinity-6d247cd1-94e3-4a58-a762-77724e895644-1522159460624@3c-app-gmx-bs61>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>, sulrich@codeaurora.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
To: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:37354 "EHLO
        smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751136AbeC0OXg (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:23:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <trinity-6d247cd1-94e3-4a58-a762-77724e895644-1522159460624@3c-app-gmx-bs61>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 3/27/2018 10:04 AM, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Double sorry now.
>>
>> I don't know if you have been following "RFC on writel and writel_relaxed" thread
>> or not but there are some new developments about wmb() requirement. 
> 
> Just out of interest: Where can this thread be found?

https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg62570.html

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10309913/


> 
>>
>> Basically, wmb() should never be used before writel() as writel() seem to
>> provide coherency and observability guarantee.
>>
> 
> AFAIU memory-barriers.txt writel() only guarantees correct order of accesses to
> IO-memory not RAM vs. IO-memory (this may be the case for some architectures 
> where the writel() implementation contains a wmb() but not for all).
> For the RAM vs. IO-memory case at least a a wmb()/rmb() has to be used. 
> Is this not correct? 

We are being told that if you use writel(), then you don't need a wmb() on
all architectures.

Jason is seeking behavior clarification for write combined buffers.

> 
> Regards,
> Lino
> 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.