[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d2026cc-28e1-7781-fc95-e6160bd8db86@csgroup.eu>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2021 11:35:34 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
David Sehr <sehr@...gle.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Paul <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.16 v7 02/11] powerpc: membarrier: Skip memory
barrier in switch_mm()
Le 18/06/2021 à 19:26, Mathieu Desnoyers a écrit :
> ----- On Jun 18, 2021, at 1:13 PM, Christophe Leroy christophe.leroy@...roup.eu wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I don't understand all that complexity to just replace a simple
>> 'smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()'.
>>
>> #define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() smp_mb()
>> #define smp_mb() barrier()
>> # define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
>>
>>
>> Am I missing some subtility ?
>
> On powerpc CONFIG_SMP, smp_mb() is actually defined as:
>
> #define smp_mb() __smp_mb()
> #define __smp_mb() mb()
> #define mb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory")
>
> So the original motivation here was to skip a "sync" instruction whenever
> switching between threads which are part of the same process. But based on
> recent discussions, I suspect my implementation may be inaccurately doing
> so though.
>
I see.
Then, if you think a 'sync' is a concern, shouldn't we try and remove the forest of 'sync' in the
I/O accessors ?
I can't really understand why we need all those 'sync' and 'isync' and 'twi' around the accesses
whereas I/O memory is usually mapped as 'Guarded' so memory access ordering is already garantied.
I'm sure we'll save a lot with that.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists