Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering (Was: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code)
From: Scott Wood <hidden>
Date: 2008-05-23 21:13:37
Also in:
lkml
From: Scott Wood <hidden>
Date: 2008-05-23 21:13:37
Also in:
lkml
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 08:36 -0400, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:quoted
- mandate some kind of dma_sync_for_device/cpu on consistent memory. Almost no driver do that currently tho. They only do that for non consistent memory mapped with dma_map_*. - mandate the use of wmb,rmb,mb barriers for use between memory accesses and MMIOs for ordering them. (ie. fix drivers that don't do it). Advantage for powerpc is that I can remove (after some auditing of course) the added heavy barriers in the MMIO accessors themselves.Note that the above is my preferred approach, and a lot of drivers happen to already do this.
As Trent pointed out, if you change to eieio in the accessors, that'd require drivers to also use mmiowb() before spin_unlock(), which fewer drivers currently do.
quoted
- stick a full memory clobber in all MMIO (and PIO) accessors on all archs.
I like this, combined with introducing raw variants of the non-PCI accessors (in_be32 and such). It's slower and safe by default (i.e. no auditing drivers), but performance-critical paths can be optimized to use raw accessors combined with explicit barriers. -Scott