lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: I/O memory barriers vs SMP memory barriers
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:24:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > > > > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but device
> > > > > synchronisation does not. The question is that given this, whether
> > > > > mb() and friends can be NOPs on ARM or not (i.e. whether mb() is
> > > > > supposed to sync against other CPUs or not, or whether only smp_mb()
> > > > > can be used for this.) ]
> > > >
> > > > Hmmmm...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > 3. Orders memory accesses and device accesses, but not necessarily
> > > the union of the two -- mb(), rmb(), wmb().
> >
> > If mb/rmb/wmb are required to order normal memory accesses, that means
> > that the change made in commit 9623b3732d11b0a18d9af3419f680d27ea24b014
> > to always define mb/rmb/wmb as barrier() on ARM systems was wrong.
>
> This was on UP ARM systems, right?

No.

If you look at commit 9623b3732d11b0a18d9af3419f680d27ea24b014, you can
see that it defines mb/rmb/wmb as barrier() on both ARM UP and SMP systems.
The UP part is obviously fine, the SMP part is what is under debate here.


> Assuming that ARM CPUs respect the usual CPU-self-consistency
> semantics, and given the background that device accesses are ordered,
> then it might well be OK to have mb/rmb/wmb be barrier() on UP ARM
> systems.
>
> Most likely not on SMP ARM systems, however.

Given the semantics above, mb/rmb/wmb can obviously be just barrier()s
on ARM UP systems.. I don't think anyone ever disagreed about that.


> > Does everybody agree on these semantics, though? At least David
> > seems to think that mb/rmb/wmb aren't required to order normal
> > memory accesses against each other..
>
> Not on UP. On SMP, ordering is (almost certainly) required.

'almost certainly'? That sounds like there is a possibility that it
wouldn't have to? What does this depend on?

At least David and Catalin seem to disagree with the statement
that mb/rmb/wmb should order accesses from different CPUs. And
memory-barriers.txt is pretty vague about this..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-26 10:49    [W:0.136 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site