[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120121082857.GC32134@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:28:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...radead.org,
hpa@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NVMe: Fix compilation on architecturs without
readq/writeq
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Matthew Wilcox
> <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com> wrote:
> > The only places that uses readq/writeq are in the initialisation
> > path. Since they're not performance critical, always use readl/writel.
>
> The arch rules are that i fthe architecture has readq/writeq, they
> will be #define'd (they may be inline functions, but there will be a
>
> #define readq readq
>
> to make it visible to the preprocessor as well).
>
> So if you don't need the atomicity guarantees of a "real" readq, you
> can do this instead:
>
> #ifndef readq
> static inline u64 readq(void __iomem *addr)
> {
> return readl(addr) | (((u64) readl(addr + 4)) << 32LL);
> }
> #endif
>
> and then use readq() as if it existed.
>
> And I do think we should expose this in some generic manner. Because
> we currently don't, we already have that pattern copied in quite a few
> drivers.
>
> Maybe <asm-generic/io-nonatomic.h> or something? Making it
> clear that its not atomic, but avoiding the silly duplication
> we do now..
>
> This whole mess was introduced in commit dbee8a0affd5 ("x86:
> remove 32-bit versions of readq()/writeq()"), and it already
> talked about the problems but didn't help with the drivers
> that simply don't care.
>
> All the people in those threads were doing their
> self-satisfied "writeq is broken", without much acknowledging
> that 99% of users simply don't seem to care.
>
> "Occupy Writeq - We are the 99%"
Agreed, and offering a generic facility for silly duplication
was the motivation of the original commit by Hitoshi Mitake.
This:
| The presense of a writeq() implementation on 32-bit x86 that
| splits the 64-bit write into two 32-bit writes turns out to
| break the mpt2sas driver (and in general is risky for drivers
| as was discussed in
| <http://lkml.kernel.org/r/adaab6c1h7c.fsf@cisco.com>).
is actually a mostly bogus statement and creates more problems
than it solves.
Hitoshi-san, would you be interested in re-adding the generic
readq/writeq definitions in a slight variation to 2c5643b1c5, to
a separate io-nonatomic.h file, so that drivers that want it can
#include that file and be happy?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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