On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:57:50PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:59:28 PST (-0800), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:46 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:55:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > For all I can see, this should not conflict with the usage of the
> > > > same macros on RISC-V, though it does make add a significant
> > > > difference, so I'd like to see an Ack from the RISC-V folks as
> > > > well (added to Cc), or possibly a change to arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h
> > > > to do a corresponding change.
>
> Thanks, the original patches didn't make it through my filters.
>
> > > There's already a comment in that header which says that the accesses are
> > > ordered wrt timer reads, so I don't think anything needs to change there.
> > > For consistency with the macro arguments, I could augment their __io_par to
> > > take the read value as an unused argument, if that's what you mean?
>
> FWIW, we don't really have a way to mandate this in the ISA yet as there's
> no formal model for either CSR orderings or the IO memory space.
Ah, so you may end up needing the dependency trick too, depending on where
you land with the ISA.
> > Yes, that's what I meant, I should have been clearer there.
>
> That sounds reasonable to me. It looks like we can also go ahead and delete
> a bunch of arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h now that this stuff is in
> asm-generic, which would cause us to actually start using these things. I
> didn't know this had all been moved to asm-generic otherwise I would have
> cleaned this up earlier.
>
> I think this should do it, but this does bring up a bit of an issue: the
> RISC-V versions of reads and friends put barriers outside the loop, while
> the asm-generic version don't. What are these actually supposed to do?
You're referring to the string accessors (e.g. insb() and readsw()), right?
arm and arm64 don't provide barriers here either, and I don't think they
should have to given that these routines are usually used to poll data
register-based FIFOs and therefore don't need to provide ordering guarantees
against DMA operations. However, this is woefully undocumented and I shall
try to address this in the next version of my memory-barriers.txt patch
relating to this area [1].
> Either way that resolves, feel free to consider something like
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h
> index b269451e7e85..378975f180a7 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h
> @@ -198,20 +198,20 @@ static inline u64 __raw_readq(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
> * writes.
> */
> #define __io_pbr() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence io,i" : : : "memory");
> -#define __io_par() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence i,ior" : : : "memory");
> +#define __io_par(v) __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence i,ior" : : : "memory");
> #define __io_pbw() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence iow,o" : : : "memory");
> #define __io_paw() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence o,io" : : : "memory");
>
> -#define inb(c) ({ u8 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readb_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; })
> -#define inw(c) ({ u16 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readw_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; })
> -#define inl(c) ({ u32 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readl_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; })
> +#define inb(c) ({ u8 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readb_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; })
> +#define inw(c) ({ u16 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readw_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; })
> +#define inl(c) ({ u32 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readl_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; })
>
> #define outb(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writeb_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); })
> #define outw(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writew_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); })
> #define outl(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writel_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); })
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> -#define inq(c) ({ u64 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readq_cpu((void*)(c)); __io_par(); __v; })
> +#define inq(c) ({ u64 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readq_cpu((void*)(c)); __io_par(__v); __v; })
> #define outq(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writeq_cpu((v),(void*)(c)); __io_paw(); })
> #endif
>
> @@ -261,9 +261,9 @@ __io_reads_ins(reads, u32, l, __io_br(), __io_ar())
> #define readsw(addr, buffer, count) __readsw(addr, buffer, count)
> #define readsl(addr, buffer, count) __readsl(addr, buffer, count)
>
> -__io_reads_ins(ins, u8, b, __io_pbr(), __io_par())
> -__io_reads_ins(ins, u16, w, __io_pbr(), __io_par())
> -__io_reads_ins(ins, u32, l, __io_pbr(), __io_par())
> +__io_reads_ins(ins, u8, b, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr))
> +__io_reads_ins(ins, u16, w, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr))
> +__io_reads_ins(ins, u32, l, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr))
> #define insb(addr, buffer, count) __insb((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count)
> #define insw(addr, buffer, count) __insw((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count)
> #define insl(addr, buffer, count) __insl((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count)
>
> as
>
> Revewied-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> when included along with the other diff. That way we can at least keep the
> macro signatures matching, the cleanup can come later...
Thanks, Palmer! I'll send a v2 of this patch, updated to fix up insq() as
well as the readX() macros too, since they're likely to suffer the exact
same issues as inX() in this regard.
Will
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/11/1803
