From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752189AbeCWQbS (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:31:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:53144 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751714AbeCWQbP (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:31:15 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 4809560588 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=okaya@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] bnx2x: Eliminate duplicate barriers on weakly-ordered archs To: David Miller Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org, sulrich@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ariel.elior@cavium.com, everest-linux-l2@cavium.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1521738603-23596-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1521738603-23596-4-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <20180323.122035.1380806748695640531.davem@davemloft.net> From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:31:12 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180323.122035.1380806748695640531.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/23/2018 12:20 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Sinan Kaya > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:10:00 -0400 > >> Code includes wmb() followed by writel(). writel() already has a >> barrier on some architectures like arm64. > ... >> @@ -4155,7 +4155,7 @@ netdev_tx_t bnx2x_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev) >> txdata->tx_db.data.prod += nbd; >> barrier(); >> >> - DOORBELL(bp, txdata->cid, txdata->tx_db.raw); >> + DOORBELL_RELAXED(bp, txdata->cid, txdata->tx_db.raw); >> >> mmiowb(); > ... >> @@ -2592,7 +2592,7 @@ static int bnx2x_run_loopback(struct bnx2x *bp, int loopback_mode) >> >> txdata->tx_db.data.prod += 2; >> barrier(); >> - DOORBELL(bp, txdata->cid, txdata->tx_db.raw); >> + DOORBELL_RELAXED(bp, txdata->cid, txdata->tx_db.raw); > > These are compiler barriers being used here, not wmb(). > > Look, if I can't see a clear: > > wmb() > writel() > > sequence in the patch hunks, I am going to keep pushing back on > these changes. Sorry, you got me confused now. If you look at the code closer, you'll see this. wmb(); txdata->tx_db.data.prod += nbd; barrier(); DOORBELL(bp, txdata->cid, txdata->tx_db.raw); and you also asked me to rename DOORBELL to DOORBELL_RELAXED() to make it obvious that we have a relaxed operator inside the macro. Did I miss something? of course, treating barrier() universally as a write barrier is wrong. > > Thank you. > -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.