From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/21] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 14:17:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190412131727.GB29218@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e172bf1d741eafd8c056ae3692b400f24bb7c3a7.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:07:09PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 15:34 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 3:13 PM Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Minor nit... I would have said "All readX() and writeX() accesses
> > > _from
> > > the same CPU_ to the same peripheral... and then s/the CPU/this
> > > CPU.
> >
> > Maybe talk about "same thread" rather than "same cpu", with the
> > understanding that scheduling/preemption has to include the
> > appropriate cross-CPU IO barrier?
>
> Works for me, but why not spell all this out in the document ? We know,
> but others might not.
Ok, how about the diff below on top of:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=for-next/mmiowb
?
I do plan to investigate ioremap_wc() and friends in the future, but it's
been painful enough just dealing with the common case! I'll almost certainly
need your help with that too.
Will
--->8
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1660dde75e14..8ce298e09d54 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -2524,26 +2524,30 @@ guarantees:
1. All readX() and writeX() accesses to the same peripheral are ordered
with respect to each other. This ensures that MMIO register writes by
- the CPU to a particular device will arrive in program order.
-
- 2. A writeX() by the CPU to the peripheral will first wait for the
- completion of all prior CPU writes to memory. This ensures that
- writes by the CPU to an outbound DMA buffer allocated by
- dma_alloc_coherent() will be visible to a DMA engine when the CPU
- writes to its MMIO control register to trigger the transfer.
-
- 3. A readX() by the CPU from the peripheral will complete before any
- subsequent CPU reads from memory can begin. This ensures that reads
- by the CPU from an incoming DMA buffer allocated by
- dma_alloc_coherent() will not see stale data after reading from the
- DMA engine's MMIO status register to establish that the DMA transfer
- has completed.
-
- 4. A readX() by the CPU from the peripheral will complete before any
- subsequent delay() loop can begin execution. This ensures that two
- MMIO register writes by the CPU to a peripheral will arrive at least
- 1us apart if the first write is immediately read back with readX()
- and udelay(1) is called prior to the second writeX():
+ the same CPU thread to a particular device will arrive in program
+ order.
+
+ 2. A writeX() by a CPU thread to the peripheral will first wait for the
+ completion of all prior writes to memory either issued by the thread
+ or issued while holding a spinlock that was subsequently taken by the
+ thread. This ensures that writes by the CPU to an outbound DMA
+ buffer allocated by dma_alloc_coherent() will be visible to a DMA
+ engine when the CPU writes to its MMIO control register to trigger
+ the transfer.
+
+ 3. A readX() by a CPU thread from the peripheral will complete before
+ any subsequent reads from memory by the same thread can begin. This
+ ensures that reads by the CPU from an incoming DMA buffer allocated
+ by dma_alloc_coherent() will not see stale data after reading from
+ the DMA engine's MMIO status register to establish that the DMA
+ transfer has completed.
+
+ 4. A readX() by a CPU thread from the peripheral will complete before
+ any subsequent delay() loop can begin execution on the same thread.
+ This ensures that two MMIO register writes by the CPU to a peripheral
+ will arrive at least 1us apart if the first write is immediately read
+ back with readX() and udelay(1) is called prior to the second
+ writeX():
writel(42, DEVICE_REGISTER_0); // Arrives at the device...
readl(DEVICE_REGISTER_0);
@@ -2600,8 +2604,10 @@ guarantees:
These will perform appropriately for the type of access they're actually
doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX().
-All of these accessors assume that the underlying peripheral is little-endian,
-and will therefore perform byte-swapping operations on big-endian architectures.
+With the exception of the string accessors (insX(), outsX(), readsX() and
+writesX()), all of the above assume that the underlying peripheral is
+little-endian and will therefore perform byte-swapping operations on big-endian
+architectures.
========================================
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-12 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-05 13:59 [PATCH v2 00/21] Remove Mysterious Macro Intended to Obscure Weird Behaviours (mmiowb()) Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 01/21] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section Will Deacon
2019-04-10 10:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-10 12:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-11 11:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-11 22:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2019-04-11 22:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-12 2:07 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2019-04-12 13:17 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2019-04-15 4:05 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2019-04-16 9:13 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 02/21] asm-generic/mmiowb: Add generic implementation of mmiowb() tracking Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 03/21] arch: Use asm-generic header for asm/mmiowb.h Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 04/21] mmiowb: Hook up mmiowb helpers to spinlocks and generic I/O accessors Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 05/21] ARM/io: Remove useless definition of mmiowb() Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 06/21] arm64/io: " Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 07/21] x86/io: " Will Deacon
2019-04-05 14:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 08/21] nds32/io: " Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 09/21] m68k/io: " Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 10/21] sh/mmiowb: Add unconditional mmiowb() to arch_spin_unlock() Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 11/21] mips/mmiowb: " Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 12/21] ia64/mmiowb: " Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 13/21] powerpc/mmiowb: Hook up mmwiob() implementation to asm-generic code Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 14/21] riscv/mmiowb: " Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 15/21] Documentation: Kill all references to mmiowb() Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 16/21] drivers: Remove useless trailing comments from mmiowb() invocations Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb() Will Deacon
2019-04-05 15:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-09 9:00 ` Nicholas Piggin
2019-04-09 13:46 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-10 0:25 ` Nicholas Piggin
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 18/21] scsi/qla1280: Remove stale comment about mmiowb() Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 19/21] i40iw: Redefine i40iw_mmiowb() to do nothing Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 20/21] net/ethernet/silan/sc92031: Remove stale comment about mmiowb() Will Deacon
2019-04-05 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 21/21] arch: Remove dummy mmiowb() definitions from arch code Will Deacon
2019-04-05 15:55 ` [PATCH v2 00/21] Remove Mysterious Macro Intended to Obscure Weird Behaviours (mmiowb()) Linus Torvalds
2019-04-05 16:09 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-05 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-05 16:30 ` Will Deacon
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=20190412131727.GB29218@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
/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®