lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue
From
Date
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 10:47 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Roland" == Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> writes:
>
> >> This is a different issue. We deal with it on powerpc by having
> >> writel set a per-cpu flag and spin_unlock() test it, and do the
> >> barrier if needed there.
>
> Roland> Cool... I assume you do this for mutex_unlock() etc?
>
> Roland> Is there any reason why ia64 can't do this too so we can kill
> Roland> mmiowb and save everyone a lot of hassle? (mips, sh and frv
> Roland> have non-empty mmiowb() definitions too but I'd guess that
> Roland> these are all bugs based on misunderstandings of the mmiowb()
> Roland> semantics...)
>
> Hi Roland,
>
> Thats not going to solve the problem on Altix. On Altix the issue is
> that there can be multiple paths through the NUMA fabric from cpuX to
> PCI bridge Y.
>
> Consider this uber-cool<tm> ascii art - NR is my abbrevation for NUMA
> router:
>
> ------- -------
> |cpu X| |cpu Y|
> ------- -------
> | \____ ____/ |
> | \/ |
> | ____/\____ |
> | / \ |
> ----- ------
> |NR 1| |NR 2|
> ------ ------
> \ /
> \ /
> -------
> | PCI |
> -------
>
> The problem is that your two writel's, despite being both issued on
> cpu X, due to the spin lock, in your example, can end up with the
> first one going through NR 1 and the second one going through NR 2. If
> there's contention on NR 1, the write going via NR 2 may hit the PCI
> bridge prior to the one going via NR 1.
>
> Of course, the bigger the system, the worse the problem....
>
> The only way to guarantee ordering in the above setup, is to either
> make writel() fully ordered or adding the mmiowb()'s inbetween the two
> writel's. On Altix you have to go and read from the PCI brige to
> ensure all writes to it have been flushed, which is also what mmiowb()
> is doing. If writel() was to guarantee this ordering, it would make
> every writel() call extremely expensive :-(

So if a read from the bridge achieves the same effect, can't we just put
one after the writes within the spinlock (an unrelaxed one). That way
this whole sequence will look like a well understood PCI posting flush
rather than have to muck around with little understood (at least by most
driver writers) io barriers?

James




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-29 17:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans