linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] define ARM-specific dma_coherent_write

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: <1315321331.2313.10.camel@deneb.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:02:10 -0400
From:	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	ming.lei@...onical.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] define ARM-specific dma_coherent_write_sync

On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:48 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 6 September 2011 15:37, Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:32 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> That's what mb() and wmb() do already, at least on ARM. Why do we need
> >> another API? IIRC from past discussions on linux-arch around barriers,
> >> the mb() should be sufficient in the case of DMA coherent buffers.
> >> That's why macros like writel() on ARM have the mb() added by default
> >> (for cases where you start the DMA transfer by writing to a device
> >> register).
> >
> > For USB EHCI, the driver does not necessarily write to a register after
> > writing to DMA coherent memory. In some cases, the controller polls for
> > information written by the driver.
> 
> So as I understand, you would like to force the eviction from the
> write buffer rather than waiting for it to be drained. On ARM, the
> write buffer is eventually flushed, so there is no strict timing
> guarantee. It could take longer if the processor immediately starts
> polling some memory location for example, but in this case a simple
> barrier would do.

Yes, a memory barrier would have the same effect on ARM, but the
purpose of a barrier is to guarantee ordering. What the patch does
is add an interface to force a write buffer flush for performance,
not ordering. If a memory barrier is used, it could have a negative
impact on other arches.

In any case, the current thinking is that the original problem with
the USB performance seen on cortex A9 multicore is probably something
more than just write buffer delays. Once the original problem is better
understood, we can take another look at this patch if it is still
needed.

--Mark



--
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/