[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1157754172.9584.14.camel@rh4>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:22:52 -0700
From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>
To: "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: "Segher Boessenkool" <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: TG3 data corruption (TSO ?)
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 07:46 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> The PowerPC writel has a full sync _after_ the write, mostly to prevent
> it from leaking out of a spinlock, and for ordering it vs. other
> writel's or readl's. It doesn't provide any ordering guarantee vs
> cacheable storage (and was never intended to do so afaik). Such ordering
> shall
> be provided explicitely. It's possible that 2.4 used a big hammer
> approach but we've since been actively fixing drivers for that. It's to
> be noted that PowerPC might not be the only architecture affected as I
> don't think that in general, you have ordering guarantees between
> cacheable and non-cacheable stores unless you use explicit barriers.
I think 2.4 might have an additional sync before the write which will
guarantee that the buffer descriptor is written before telling the chip
to DMA it.
>
> Thus I disagree with "fixing" the powerpc writel(). The barries shall
> definitely go into tg3.
>
You'll have to take this up with David.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists