[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221018100554.GA3112@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:05:55 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, bagasdotme@...il.com,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, parri.andrea@...il.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, boqun.feng@...il.com,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, dlustig@...dia.com,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] locking/memory-barriers.txt: Improve documentation
for writel() example
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:55:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022, at 12:13 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > The cited commit describes that when using writel(), explcit wmb()
> > is not needed. wmb() is an expensive barrier. writel() uses the needed
> > platform specific barrier instead of expensive wmb().
> >
> > Hence update the example to be more accurate that matches the current
> > implementation.
> >
> > commit 5846581e3563 ("locking/memory-barriers.txt: Fix broken DMA vs.
> > MMIO ordering example")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
>
> I have no objections, though I still don't see a real need to change
> the wording here.
FWIW, I also don't think this change is necessary. If anything, I'd say
we'd be better off _removing_ the text about writel from this section and
extending the reference to the "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section,
as you could make similar comments about e.g. readb() and subsequent
barriers.
For example, something like the diff below.
Will
--->8
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 06f80e3785c5..93d9a90b7cfa 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1910,7 +1910,8 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
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.
+ DMA capable device. See Documentation/core-api/dma-api.rst file for more
+ information about consistent memory.
For example, consider a device driver that shares memory with a device
and uses a descriptor status value to indicate if the descriptor belongs
@@ -1935,18 +1936,15 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
writel(DESC_NOTIFY, doorbell);
}
- The dma_rmb() allows us guarantee the device has released ownership
+ The dma_rmb() allows us to guarantee that the device has released ownership
before we read the data from the descriptor, and the dma_wmb() allows
us to guarantee the data is written to the descriptor before the device
- can see it now has ownership. The dma_mb() implies both a dma_rmb() and
- a dma_wmb(). Note that, when using writel(), a prior wmb() is not needed
- to guarantee that the cache coherent memory writes have completed before
- writing to the MMIO region. The cheaper writel_relaxed() does not provide
- this guarantee and must not be used here.
-
- See the subsection "Kernel I/O barrier effects" for more information on
- relaxed I/O accessors and the Documentation/core-api/dma-api.rst file for
- more information on consistent memory.
+ can see it now has ownership. dma_mb() implies both a dma_rmb() and
+ a dma_wmb().
+
+ Note that the dma_*() barriers do not provide any ordering guarantees for
+ accesses to MMIO regions. See the later "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS"
+ subsection for more information about I/O accessors and MMIO ordering.
(*) pmem_wmb();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists