On 3/26/2018 6:01 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 17:46 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 3/26/2018 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> But that was never a requirement of writel(),
>>>> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt gives an explicit example demanding
>>>> the wmb() before writel() for ordering system memory against writel.
>>>
>>> Indeed, but it's in an example for when to use dma_wmb(), not wmb().
>>> Adding Alexander Duyck to Cc, he added that section as part of
>>> 1077fa36f23e ("arch: Add lightweight memory barriers dma_rmb() and
>>> dma_wmb()"). Also adding the other people that were involved with that.
>>>
>>
>> ARM developers can get away with not including wmb() in their code and use
>> writel() to observe memory writes due to implicit barriers.
>>
>> However, same code will not work on Intel.
>
> Wrong. It will.
>
> You do NOT need wmb between writes to memory and writel.
If writel() provides such a guarantee, why do I see code sequences like
wmb()
writel()
all over the place.
>
>> writel() has a compiler barrier in it for x86.
>> wmb() has a sync operation in it for x86.
>>
>> Unless wmb() is called, PCIe device won't observe memory updates from the CPU.
>
> This is completely wrong. They will. Intel provides the necessary
> ordering guarantees without an explicit wmb.
>
I'm still reserving my doubts here. I was told about an explicit
wmb() requirement last week.
> Otherwise almost all drivers out there are broken which I very much
> doubt :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
>
>
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
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
