- if (nvmeq->sq_cmds_io)
- memcpy_toio(&nvmeq->sq_cmds_io[tail], cmd, sizeof(*cmd));
- else
- memcpy(&nvmeq->sq_cmds[tail], cmd, sizeof(*cmd));
+ memcpy(&nvmeq->sq_cmds[tail], cmd, sizeof(*cmd));
Hmm, how safe is replacing memcpy_toio() with regular memcpy()? On PPC
the _toio() variant enforces alignment, does the copy with 4 byte
stores, and has a full barrier after the copy. In comparison our
regular memcpy() does none of those things and may use unaligned and
vector load/stores. For normal (cacheable) memory that is perfectly
fine, but they can cause alignment faults when targeted at MMIO
(cache-inhibited) memory.
I think in this particular case it might be ok since we know SEQs are
aligned to 64 byte boundaries and the copy is too small to use our
vectorised memcpy(). I'll assume we don't need explicit ordering
between writes of SEQs since the existing code doesn't seem to care
unless the doorbell is being rung, so you're probably fine there too.
That said, I still think this is a little bit sketchy and at the very
least you should add a comment explaining what's going on when the CMB
is being used. If someone more familiar with the NVMe driver could
chime in I would appreciate it.
I may not be understanding the concern, but I'll give it a shot.
You're right, the start of any SQE is always 64-byte aligned, so that
should satisfy alignment requirements.
The order when writing multiple/successive SQEs in a submission queue
does matter, and this is currently serialized through the q_lock.
The order in which the bytes of a single SQE is written doesn't really
matter as long as the entire SQE is written into the CMB prior to writing
that SQ's doorbell register.
The doorbell register is written immediately after copying a command
entry into the submission queue (ignore "shadow buffer" features),
so the doorbells written to commands submitted is 1:1.
If a CMB SQE and DB order is not enforced with the memcpy, then we do
need a barrier after the SQE's memcpy and before the doorbell's writel.
Keith, while we're on this, regardless of cmb, is SQE memcopy and DB
update ordering always guaranteed?
If you look at mlx4 (rdma device driver) that works exactly the same as
nvme you will find:
--
qp->sq.head += nreq;
/*
* Make sure that descriptors are written before
* doorbell record.
*/
wmb();
writel(qp->doorbell_qpn,
to_mdev(ibqp->device)->uar_map +
MLX4_SEND_DOORBELL);
/*
* Make sure doorbells don't leak out of SQ spinlock
* and reach the HCA out of order.
*/
mmiowb();
--
That seems to explicitly make sure to place a barrier before updating
the doorbell. So as I see it, either ordering is guaranteed and the
above code is redundant, or nvme needs to do the same.
Thoughts?
