lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Rampant ext3/4 corruption on 2.6.34-rc7 with VIVT ARM (Marvell 88f5182)
From
Date
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 08:47 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 23:21 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> > > There was a memory write barrier missing before the DMA descriptors
> > > are handed over to DMA controller.
> >
> > On that note, are the cache flush functions implicit memory barriers?

Not exactly ... they *should* be stream ordered with respect to accesses
to the memory they're flushing (which isn't the same thing, and no-one
ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of chip designers, but if a
flush instruction needs explicit ordering, I'd expect that to be built
into the arch layer).

> (Adding Fujita on CC)
>
> That's a very good question. The generic inline implementation of
> dma_sync_* is:
>
> static inline void dma_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr,
> size_t size,
> enum dma_data_direction dir)
> {
> struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
>
> BUG_ON(!valid_dma_direction(dir));
> if (ops->sync_single_for_cpu)
> ops->sync_single_for_cpu(dev, addr, size, dir);
> debug_dma_sync_single_for_cpu(dev, addr, size, dir);
> }
>
> Which means that for coherent architectures that do not implement
> the ops->sync_* hooks, we are probably missing a barrier here...
>
> Thus if the above is expected to be a memory barrier, it's broken on
> cache coherent powerpc for example. On non-coherent powerpc, we do cache
> flushes and those are implicit barriers.

Can you explain this a little more. On a cache coherent machine, the
sync is a nop ... why would you want a nop to be any type of barrier?

James




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-13 01:45    [W:0.096 / U:2.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site