mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	akpm@osdl.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, bcrl@linux.intel.com,
	matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, jblunck@suse.de
Subject: Re: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:20:57 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <17422.19865.635112.820824@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603040914160.22647@g5.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds writes:

> So the rules from the PC side (and like it or not, they end up being 
> what all the drivers are tested with) are:
> 
>  - regular stores are ordered by write barriers

I thought regular stores were always ordered anyway?

>  - PIO stores are always synchronous

By synchronous, do you mean ordered with respect to all other accesses
(regular memory, MMIO, prefetchable MMIO, PIO)?

In other words, if I store a value in regular memory, then do an
outb() to a device, and the device does a DMA read to the location I
just stored to, is the device guaranteed to see the value I just
stored (assuming no other later store to the location)?

>  - MMIO stores are ordered by IO semantics
> 	- PCI ordering must be honored:
> 	  * write combining is only allowed on PCI memory resources
> 	    that are marked prefetchable. If your host bridge does write 
> 	    combining in general, it's not a "host bridge", it's a "host 
> 	    disaster".

Presumably the host bridge doesn't know what sort of PCI resource is
mapped at a given address, so that information (whether the resource
is prefetchable) must come from the CPU, which would get it from the
TLB entry or an MTRR entry - is that right?

Or is there some gentleman's agreement between the host bridge and the
BIOS that certain address ranges are only used for certain types of
PCI memory resources?

> 	  * for others, writes can always be posted, but they cannot
> 	    be re-ordered wrt either reads or writes to that device
> 	    (ie a read will always be fully synchronizing)
> 	- io_wmb must be honored

What ordering is there between stores to regular memory and stores to
non-prefetchable MMIO?

If a store to regular memory can be performed before a store to MMIO,
does a wmb() suffice to enforce an ordering, or do you have to use
mmiowb()?

Do PCs ever use write-through caching on prefetchable MMIO resources?

Thanks,
Paul.

  reply	other threads:[~2006-03-08  3:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-03 16:03 David Howells
2006-03-03 16:45 ` David Howells
2006-03-03 17:03   ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-06  9:06     ` Helge Hafting
2006-03-03 20:02   ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-03-03 20:17   ` David Howells
2006-03-03 21:34     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-03 21:51       ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-03-03 22:21         ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-03 22:36           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-07 17:36   ` David Howells
2006-03-07 17:40     ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-03-07 17:56       ` Jesse Barnes
2006-03-07 18:18     ` Alan Cox
2006-03-07 18:28       ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-07 18:55         ` Alan Cox
2006-03-07 20:21           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-03 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-03 21:06   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-03-03 21:18     ` Hollis Blanchard
2006-03-03 21:52       ` David S. Miller
2006-03-03 22:04     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-04 10:58     ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-04 22:49       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-03-04 10:58   ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-04 17:28     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-08  3:20       ` Paul Mackerras [this message]
2006-03-08  3:54         ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-08 13:12           ` Alan Cox
2006-03-08 15:30             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-05  2:04     ` Michael Buesch
2006-03-03 20:15 ` David Howells
2006-03-03 21:31   ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found] <5Ml19-2Ki-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <5MlO0-3JU-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <5MCF0-2TS-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]     ` <5MITJ-2l4-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]       ` <5NXxl-6WZ-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]         ` <5NY0h-7wa-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-03-11  1:19           ` Robert Hancock
2006-03-12 18:09             ` Alan Cox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=17422.19865.635112.820824@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com \
    --to=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=bcrl@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=jblunck@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=matthew@wil.cx \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®