linux-kernel - Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1157965372.23085.87.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:02:52 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

Ar Llu, 2006-09-11 am 10:12 +1000, ysgrifennodd Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
>  - writel/readl are fully synchronous (minus mmiowb for spinlocks)
>  - we provide __writel/__readl with some barriers with relaxed ordering
> between memory and MMIO (though still _precise_ semantics, not arch
> specific)

I'd rather they were less precise than your later proposal but that
reflects the uses I'm considering perhaps.

>  * Option B:
> 
>  - The driver decides at ioremap time wether it wants a fully ordered
> mapping or not using

That is expensive because writel/readl end up full of if() while at the
moment they are often 1 instruction.


-
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/