[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5474ADB4.5070200@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:26:28 -0800
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca" <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"mikey@...ling.org" <mikey@...ling.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"donald.c.skidmore@...el.com" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
"matthew.vick@...el.com" <matthew.vick@...el.com>,
"geert@...ux-m68k.org" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"romieu@...zoreil.com" <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"nic_swsd@...ltek.com" <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
"michael@...erman.id.au" <michael@...erman.id.au>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] arch: Add lightweight memory barriers dma_rmb()
and dma_wmb()
On 11/25/2014 06:01 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:24:02AM +0000, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> index 22a969c..a1c589b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> @@ -1615,6 +1615,47 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
>> operations" subsection for information on where to use these.
>>
>>
>> + (*) dma_wmb();
>> + (*) dma_rmb();
>> +
>> + These are for use with memory based device I/O to guarantee the ordering
>> + of cache coherent writes or reads with respect to other writes or reads
>> + to cache coherent DMA memory.
> Can you please make it crystal clear that "memory based device I/O" != MMIO?
> If people get these barriers wrong, then debugging will be a nightmare.
I think I'll update that to the following to avoid any confusion:
These are for use with consistent memory to guarantee the ordering
of writes or reads of shared memory accessible to both the CPU and a
DMA capable device.
I will also add a reference to DMA-API.txt at the end for more info on
what consistent memory is.
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
>> index c6a3e73..d2f81e6 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
>> @@ -43,10 +43,14 @@
>> #define mb() do { dsb(); outer_sync(); } while (0)
>> #define rmb() dsb()
>> #define wmb() do { dsb(st); outer_sync(); } while (0)
>> +#define dma_rmb() dmb(osh)
>> +#define dma_wmb() dmb(oshst)
>> #else
>> #define mb() barrier()
>> #define rmb() barrier()
>> #define wmb() barrier()
>> +#define dma_rmb() barrier()
>> +#define dma_wmb() barrier()
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
>> index 6389d60..a5abb00 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
>> @@ -32,6 +32,9 @@
>> #define rmb() dsb(ld)
>> #define wmb() dsb(st)
>>
>> +#define dma_rmb() dmb(oshld)
>> +#define dma_wmb() dmb(oshst)
>> +
>> #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
>> #define smp_mb() barrier()
>> #define smp_rmb() barrier()
> The arm/arm64 bits look fine to me.
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Thanks for the review.
> If we ever see platforms using Linux/dma_alloc_coherent with devices
> mastering from a different outer-shareable domain that the one containing
> the CPUs, then we'll need to revisit this.
Would we just need a system wide memory barrier in that case instead of
an outer shareable memory barrier, or would we need to look as something
like a sync barrier?
- Alex
--
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