[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4837339F.9060407@freescale.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:14:07 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.org
CC: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...escale.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering (Was: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX()
asm code)
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 08:36 -0400, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> - mandate some kind of dma_sync_for_device/cpu on consistent memory.
>> Almost no driver do that currently tho. They only do that for non
>> consistent memory mapped with dma_map_*.
>>
>> - mandate the use of wmb,rmb,mb barriers for use between memory
>> accesses and MMIOs for ordering them. (ie. fix drivers that don't do
>> it). Advantage for powerpc is that I can remove (after some auditing of
>> course) the added heavy barriers in the MMIO accessors themselves.
>
> Note that the above is my preferred approach, and a lot of drivers
> happen to already do this.
As Trent pointed out, if you change to eieio in the accessors, that'd
require drivers to also use mmiowb() before spin_unlock(), which fewer
drivers currently do.
>> - stick a full memory clobber in all MMIO (and PIO) accessors on all
>> archs.
I like this, combined with introducing raw variants of the non-PCI
accessors (in_be32 and such). It's slower and safe by default (i.e. no
auditing drivers), but performance-critical paths can be optimized to
use raw accessors combined with explicit barriers.
-Scott
--
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