[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

> >>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 :-(
> >
> >Interesting. I've always been taught by ia64 people
> >that mmiowb() was
> >intended to be used solely between writel() and
> >spin_unlock().
> >
> >I think in the above case, you really should make
> >writel() ordered.
> >Anything else is asking for trouble, for the exact same
> >reasons that I
> >made it fully ordered on powerpc at least vs. previous
> >stores. I only
> >kept it relaxed vs. subsequent cacheable stores (ie,
> >spin_unlock), for
> >which I use the trick mentioned before.
> Hmmm I hope I didn't mess up the description of this and
> added to the
> confusion.
> The net result of that would be to kill performance
> completely, I really
> don't like that idea.... Having each writel() go out and
> poll the PCI
> bridge is going to make every driver used on Altix slow
> as a dog.
> In addition it's still not going to solve the problem
> for userland
> mapped stuff such as infinibug.
> >Yes, this has some cost (can be fairly significant on
> >powerpc too) but
> >I think it's a very basic assumption from drivers that
> >consecutive
> >writel's, especially issued by the same CPU, will get
> >to the device
> >in order.
> In this case the cost is more than just significant,
> it's pretty
> crippling.
> >If this is a performance problem, then provide relaxed
> >variants and
> >use them in selected drivers.
> We'd have to make major changes to drivers like e1000,
> tg3, mptsas, the
> qla2/3/4xxx and a bunch of others to get performance
> back. I really
> think the code maintenance issue there will get far
> worse than what we
> have today :(

Still better than changing semantics of writel for _all_ drivers.

If you are really sure driver does not depend on writel order, it is
just a sed/// command, so I don't see any big code maintenance
(cesky, pictures)

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-01 16:21    [W:0.164 / U:10.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site