[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] block: fix PIO cache coherency bug
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 02 2006, Russell King wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:46:28PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 17:27 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > The objection raised by James Bottomley is that although syncing the
> > > > kernel page is the responsbility of the driver, syncing user page is
> > > > not; thus, use of flush_dcache_page() is excessive. James suggested
> > > > use of flush_kernel_dcache_page().
> > >
> > > The problem is that it's not only excessive, it would entangle us with
> > > mm locking. Basically, all you want to ensure is that the underlying
> > > memory has the information after you've done (rather than the CPU
> > > cache), flush_kernel_dcache_page() will achieve this. The block layer
> > > itself takes care of user space coherency.
> >
> > Your understanding of the problem on ARM remains fundamentally flawed.
> > I see no way to resolve this since you don't seem to listen or accept
> > my reasoning.
> >
> > Therefore, message I'm getting from you is that we are not allowed to
> > have an ARM system which can possibly work correctly with PIO.
> >
> > As a result, I have no further interest in trying to resolve this issue,
> > period. ARM people will just have to accept that PIO mode IDE drivers
> > just will not be an option.
> Hey Russell calm down, lets get this thing fixed in the easiest and
> least intrusive way for 2.6.17. As mentioned before, this isn't actually
> a new problem by any stretch, a 2.6.17 solution would be acceptable to
> you I hope.

Has any discussion about this problem lead to some consensus?

> What do you think of the kmap_atomic_pio() (notoriously bad at names,
> but it should get the point across) and kunmap_atomic_pio(), the latter
> accepting a read/write flag to note if we wrote to a vm page?
> This is basically Tejuns original patch set, just moving it out of the
> block layer so it's a generel exported property of the kmap api.

What was the problem with Tejun's patchset already to which RMK (and
many others) agreed?

I do have hardware that exhibits the problem and therefore I wish the
discussion could be resumed.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-29 21:20    [W:0.062 / U:5.452 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site