mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	jeremy@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Relaxed PIO read vs. DMA write ordering
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:02:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040107190206.GK17182@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040107175801.GA4642@sgi.com>

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:58:02AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> I've already talked with Grant a little about this, but I'm having
> second thoughts about the approach we discussed.  PCI-X allows PIO read
> responses to 'pass' DMA writes to system memory when the relaxed
> ordering bit is set in the PCI-X command word _and_ the transaction has
> the relaxed ordering bit set (so called "Relaxed Read Ordering" in
> section 11.2 of the PCI-X addendum).  This effectively 'unserializes'
> PIO vs. DMA transactions so that PIO reads doesn't get stuck behind an
> unrelated DMA writes from the same device; something which can
> potentially take awhile since cacheline ownership has to be acquired,
> etc.

So we want a pci_set_relaxed() macro / function() to set this bit
(otherwise dozens of drivers will start to try to set the bit themselves,
badly).  If this bit *isn't* set, setting the bit in the transaction will have
no effect, right?

> The proposal I gave to Grant added a new readX() variant,
> readX_relaxed(), that drivers could use when they don't need strict
> ordering semantics (this may actually be the majority of cases, but it's
> safer to be strict by default than create a read_ordered and open a
> window for data corruption).  It might be confusing, however, to add yet
> another readX() routine, and there are other ways we might go about it.
> One suggestion was to overload the pci_sync_* calls so that they'd
> explicitly flush DMA writes to system memory, implying that all reads on
> some platforms would use relaxed semantics, but that we'd have to modify
> drivers to add in pci_sync_* calls where needed.

How about always setting the bit in readb() and having a readb_ordered()
which doesn't set the bit in the transaction?  That way, drivers which
call pci_set_relaxed() have the responsibility to verify they're not
relying on these semantics and use readb_ordered() in any places that
they are.

No doubt you're going to smack this idea down by telling me what SN2
firmware currently does ...

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain

  reply	other threads:[~2004-01-07 19:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-07 17:58 Jesse Barnes
2004-01-07 19:02 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2004-01-07 22:21   ` Grant Grundler
2004-01-07 23:07     ` Jesse Barnes
2004-01-07 23:27       ` Greg KH
2004-01-07 23:56         ` Jesse Barnes
2004-01-08  0:34           ` Jesse Barnes
2004-01-08  0:08         ` Jeremy Higdon
2004-01-08 10:01         ` Jes Sorensen
2004-01-08  6:38       ` Grant Grundler
2004-01-08 16:23         ` Leonid Grossman
2004-01-08 17:39           ` Jesse Barnes
2004-01-08 17:54           ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-08 19:48             ` Leonid Grossman
2004-01-08 17:36         ` Jesse Barnes
2004-01-08 18:44           ` Grant Grundler
2004-01-09  7:13             ` Jeremy Higdon
2004-01-09 19:51               ` Jesse Barnes
2004-01-09 23:15                 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-01-09 20:02               ` Grant Grundler
2004-01-11 14:34             ` James Bottomley
2004-01-09  7:39           ` Jochen Friedrich
2004-01-09 20:27             ` Grant Grundler
2004-01-09 22:12               ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2004-01-07 22:58   ` Jesse Barnes

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=20040107190206.GK17182@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
    --to=willy@debian.org \
    --cc=jbarnes@sgi.com \
    --cc=jeremy@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
    /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

Powered by JetHome