mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julian Vetter <julian@outer-limits.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add io_sync stubs to generic IO memcpy/memset
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 09:32:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8f22066a-a2cc-4e6d-91aa-a2bdd0e53b79@outer-limits.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <308d30b7-acdb-43ec-bb27-7912a5351bcc@app.fastmail.com>

On 1/27/25 16:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025, at 15:11, Julian Vetter wrote:
>> On 1/27/25 11:27, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025, at 11:04, Julian Vetter wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for your quick reply. You're right, I was just going with the
>> naming used in the powerpc arch which has an io_sync define. I'm now
>> wondering if we can't simply use the read{l,q}/write{l,q} functions
>> (instead of the __raw_xxx version), there are already calls to __io_br
>> before and__io_ar after each read (and write). But this might have
>> performance implications on some architectures, depending what it
>> resolves to.
>>
>> Otherwise I propose renaming the __pre_io_sync and __post_io_sync into a
>> single __io_mbr which is called before and after each loop. Looking at
>> PowerPC and SuperH, both of them could be consolidated into the generic
>> IO memcpy code when adding this. What do you think?
> 
> Having barriers between the accesses would be very expensive, and
> prevent the write-combining and prefetching that can otherwise happen
> (depending on mapping flags).

Yes, ok. I see.

> 
> I suspect that the powerpc variant got this wrong for historic
> reasons, but that's hard to tell now. The ppc32 variant didn't
> have barriers at all originally, it was just memcpy/memset
> before it got combined with ppc64 into arch/powerpc.
> 

hmmm... ok. I'm not sure what do make of this. But maybe I can just send 
a patch to the PowerPC mailinglist, without those "sync" calls and see 
what they have to say.

>> The existing ones, especially __io_br unfortunately don't resolve to the
>> right define on these architectures. The __io_ar and __io_br resolve to
>> the right mb() on SuperH and PowerPC as well, but this would again have
>> implications on other architectures.
> 
> The barriers in the sh functions seem arbitrary, and I would
> expect them to be wrong.
> 
Ok, same for SuperH, I will send a patch to the mailinglist without the 
'mb()' before and after and see what they say. If they don't like it, I 
will come back to this.

Julian

> 
>        ARnd

  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-28  8:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-27 10:04 Julian Vetter
2025-01-27 10:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-01-27 14:11   ` Julian Vetter
2025-01-27 15:48     ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-01-28  8:32       ` Julian Vetter [this message]
2025-01-28  9:14         ` Arnd Bergmann

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=8f22066a-a2cc-4e6d-91aa-a2bdd0e53b79@outer-limits.org \
    --to=julian@outer-limits.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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®