On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 12:51 -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 3/22/2018 8:52 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > No, it's not sufficient.
> >
> > Just to clarify ... barrier() is just a compiler barrier, it means the
> > compiler will generate things in the order they are written. This isn't
> > sufficient on archs with an OO memory model, where an actual memory
> > barrier instruction needs to be emited.
>
> Surprisingly, ARM64 GCC compiler generates a write barrier as
> opposed to preventing code reordering.
>
> I was curious if this is an ARM only thing or not.
Are you sure of that ? I thought it's the ARM implementation of writel
that had an explicit write barrier in it:
#define writel(v,c) ({ __iowmb(); writel_relaxed((v),(c)); })
And __iowmb() is
#define __iowmb() wmb()
Note, I'm a bit dubious about this in ARM:
#define readl(c) ({ u32 __v = readl_relaxed(c); __iormb(); __v; }
Will, Marc, on powerpc, we put a sync *before* the read in readl etc...
The reasoning was there could be some DMA setup followed by a side
effect readl rather than a side effect writel to trigger a DMA. Granted
I wouldn't expect modern devices to be that stupid, but I have vague
memory of some devices back in the day having that sort of read ops.
In general, I though the model offerred by x86 and thus by Linux
readl/writel was full synchronization both before and after the MMIO,
vs either other MMIO or all other forms of ops (cachable memory, locks
etc...).
Also, can't the above readl_relaxed leak out of a lock ?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
