[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1401222098.20915.77.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 06:21:38 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"monstr@...str.eu" <monstr@...str.eu>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"broonie@...aro.org" <broonie@...aro.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO
accessors
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 20:32 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Why would you need two barriers? I would have though an mmiowb() inlined
> into writel after the store operation would be sufficient. Or is this to
> ensure a non-relaxed write is ordered with respect to a relaxed write?
Well, so the non-relaxed writel would have to do:
sync
store
sync
The first sync is to synchronize with DMAs, so that a sequence of
store to mem
writel
Remains ordered vs. the device (ie, when the writel causes the device
to do a DMA, it will see the previous store to mem).
The second sync is needed as mmiowb, to order with unlocks.
At this point, I'm keen on keeping my per-cpu trick to avoid that
second one in most cases.
> Anyway, we may need something similar for other architectures with mmiowb
> implementations:
>
> blackfin
> frv
> ia64
> mips
> sh
>
> so I'm anticipating some more discussion when I try to push that patch :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
--
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