linux-kernel - Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

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: <200806110907.12070.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:07:11 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...escale.com>,
	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, scottwood@...escale.com,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

On Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:29 pm Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008 05:19, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 10, 2008 12:05 pm Roland Dreier wrote:
> > >  > me too.  That's the whole basis for readX_relaxed() and its cohorts:
> > >  > we make our weirdest machines (like altix) conform to the x86 norm.
> > >  > Then where it really kills us we introduce additional semantics to
> > >  > selected drivers that enable us to recover I/O speed on the abnormal
> > >  > platforms.
> > >
> > > Except as I pointed out before, Altix doesn't conform to the norm and
> > > many (most?) drivers are missing mmiowb()s that are needed for Altix.
> > > Just no one has plugged most devices into an Altix (or haven't stressed
> > > the driver in a way that exposes problems of IO ordering between CPUs).
> > >
> > > It would be a great thing to use the powerpc trick of setting a flag
> > > that is tested by spin_unlock()/mutex_unlock() and automatically doing
> > > the mmiowb() if needed, and then killing off mmiowb() entirely.
> >
> > Yeah I think that's what Nick's guidelines would guarantee.  And Jes is
> > already working on the spin_unlock change you mentioned, so mmiowb()
> > should be history soon (in name only, assuming Nick also introduces the
> > I/O barriers he talked about for ordering the looser accessors it would
> > still be there but would be called io_wmb or something).
>
> Exactly, yes. I guess everybody has had good intentions here, but
> as noticed, what is lacking is coordination and documentation.
>
> You mention strong ordering WRT spin_unlock, which suggests that
> you would prefer to take option #2 (the current powerpc one): io/io
> is ordered and io is contained inside spinlocks, but io/cacheable
> in general is not ordered.

I was thinking it would be good for the weaker accessors, but now that I think 
about it you could just use the new io_* barrier functions.

I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't in favor of the io/cacheable ordering as 
well.

> For any high performance drivers that are well maintained (ie. the
> ones where slowdown might be noticed), everyone should have a pretty
> good handle on memory ordering requirements, so it shouldn't take
> long to go through and convert them to relaxed accessors.

Yep.  Thanks for working on this, Nick, it's definitely a good thing that 
you're taking control of it. :)

Thanks,
Jesse
--
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/