[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5471216.FKXZRxKFUI@flygoat-ry>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:05:51 +0800
From: Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
To: linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
陈华才 <chenhc@...ote.com>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Fuxin Zhang <zhangfx@...ote.com>,
wuzhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] MIPS: implement smp_cond_load_acquire() for Loongson-3
On 2018-7-10 Tue at 20:17:27,Peter Zijlstra Wrote:
Hi Peter
Since Huacai unable to send email via client, I'm going to reply for him
> Sure.. we all got that far. And no, this isn't the _real_ problem. This
> is a manifestation of the problem.
>
> The problem is that your SFB is broken (per the Linux requirements). We
> require that stores will become visible. That is, they must not
> indefinitely (for whatever reason) stay in the store buffer.
>
> > I don't think this is a hardware bug, in design, SFB will flushed to
> > L1 cache in three cases:
> >
> > 1, data in SFB is full (be a complete cache line);
> > 2, there is a subsequent read access in the same cache line;
> > 3, a 'sync' instruction is executed.
>
> And I think this _is_ a hardware bug. You just designed the bug instead
> of it being by accident.
Yes, we understood that this hardware feature is not supported by LKML,
so it should be a hardware bug for LKML.
>
> It doesn't happen an _any_ other architecture except that dodgy
> ARM11MPCore part. Linux hard relies on stores to become available
> _eventually_.
>
> Still, even with the rules above, the best work-around is still the very
> same cpu_relax() hack.
As you say, SFB makes Loongson not fully SMP-coherent.
However, modify cpu_relax can solve the current problem,
but not so straight forward. On the other hand, providing a Loongson-specific
WRITE_ONCE looks more reasonable, because it the eliminate the "non-cohrency".
So we can solve the bug from the root.
Thanks.
--
Jiaxun Yang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists