From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=NGUq=QT=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A51C282C4
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 04:02:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5687820842
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 04:02:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1727530AbfBLECf (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:02:35 -0500
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:41053 "EHLO gate.crashing.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726961AbfBLECe (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:02:34 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
        by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x1C41DlZ010377;
        Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:01:21 -0600
Message-ID: <d2ac1cab3b3bd7de05b6a29feda5d74a591c0081.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O
 BARRIER EFFECTS" section
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:01:13 +1100
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiP42aqBApAUJbLAB43u5ips9ArgLxXn5L1r74bowxdow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190211172948.3322-1-will.deacon@arm.com>
         <CAHk-=wiP42aqBApAUJbLAB43u5ips9ArgLxXn5L1r74bowxdow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.4 (3.30.4-1.fc29) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 14:34 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 AM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > +
> > +     1. All readX() and writeX() accesses to the same peripheral are ordered
> > +        with respect to each other. For example, this ensures that MMIO register
> > +       writes by the CPU to a particular device will arrive in program order.
> 
> Hmm. I'd like more people look at strengthening this one wrt across
> CPUs and locking.
> 
> Right now we document mmiowb(), but that "documentation" is really
> just a fairy tale. Very *very* few drivers actually do mmiowb() on
> their own.
> 
> IOW, we should seriously just consider making the rule be that locking
> will order mmio too. Because that's practically the rule anyway.
> 
> Powerpc already does it. IO within a locked region will serialize with the lock.

Yup. It's a bit ugly but I felt back then that getting drivers to use
mmiowb() properly was going to be a losing battle.

Cheers,
Ben.