On 01/14/2016 04:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:33:40PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
Don't be fooled here by words "ordered" and "completed" - it is HW
design items and actually written poorly.
Just assume that SYNC_MB is absolutely the same as SYNC for any CPU
and coherent device (besides performance). The difference can be in
non-coherent devices because SYNC actually tries to make a barrier
for them too. In some SoCs it is just the same because there is no
need to barrier a non-coherent device (device register access
usually strictly ordered... if there is no bridge in between).
So smp_mb() can be SYNC_MB. However, mb() needs to be SYNC for MMIO
purposes, correct?
Absolutely. For MIPS R2 which is not Octeon.
Note: I am not sure about ANY past MIPS R2 CPU because that stuff is
implemented some time but nobody made it in Linux kernel (it was
used by some vendor for non-Linux system). For that reason my patch
for lightweight SYNCs has an option - implement it or implement a
generic SYNC. It is possible that some vendor did it in different
way but nobody knows or test it. But as a minimum - SYNC must be
implemented in spinlocks/atomics/bitops, in recent P5600 it is
proven that read can pass write in atomics.
MIPS R6 is a different story, I verified lightweight SYNCs from the
beginning and it also should use SYNCs.
So you need to build a different kernel for some types of MIPS systems?
Or do you do boot-time rewriting, like a number of other arches do?
I don't know. I would like to have responses. Ralf asked Maciej about
old systems and that came nowhere. Even rewrite - don't know what to do
with that: no lightweight SYNC or no SYNC at all - yes, it is still
possible that SYNC on some systems can be too heavy or even harmful,
nobody tested that.
- Leonid.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-metag" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
