Re: [PATCH v2] sata_sil24: Use memory barriers before issuingcommands

[Nick Piggin]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:43:03PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 17:12 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >>On 06/10/2010 06:02 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>>The data in the cmd_block buffers may reach the main memory after the
> >>>writel() to the device ports. This patch introduces two calls to wmb()
> >>>to ensure the relative ordering.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> >>>Tested-by: Colin Tuckley<colin.tuckley@xxxxxxx>
> >>>Cc: Tejun Heo<tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Cc: Jeff Garzik<jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>I suppose you have tested and verified that this is actually
> >>necessary, right?
> >
> >Yes, otherwise we get random failures with this device on ARM.
> >
> >>I've been looking through the docs but couldn't
> >>find anything which described the ordering between writes to main
> >>memory and write[bwl]()'s.  One thing that kind of bothers me is that
> >>r/wmb()'s are for ordering memory accesses among CPUs which
> >>participate in cache coherency protocol and although it may work right
> >>in the above case I'm not really sure whether this is the right thing
> >>to do.  Do you have more information on the subject?
> >
> >The mb() are not for ordering accesses among CPUs (though they would
> >cover this case as well). For inter-CPU ordering, we have smp_mb() and
> >friends. For all other cases, we have the mandatory barriers mb() and
> >friends and DMA is one of them.
> >
> >Apart from the memory-barriers.txt document, there is the Device I/O
> >docbook which mentions something about DMA buffers, though not very
> >clear on which barriers to use (something like just make sure that the
> >writes to the buffer reached the memory).
> >
> >There were some past discussions on linux-arch before and I'm cc'ing
> >this list again (ARM is not the only architecture with a weakly memory
> >ordering model).
> >
> >I'm copying the patch below again for the linux-arch people that haven't
> >seen the beginning of the thread:
> 
> My memory is fuzzy but I thought this came up before on PPC and I
> also thought the conclusion was that the platform code (for writel,
> etc.) should enforce ordering of MMIO accesses with respect to
> normal RAM accesses. (Or maybe it was just MMIO accesses with
> respect to each other?) I don't think the answer to that question
> has been clearly documented anywhere, which is somewhat unfortunate.
> 
> If the answer is that this is needed then there are likely a lot of
> other drivers in libata and elsewhere which need to be fixed as
> well. For example, I don't see any such barriers in libahci.c when I
> presume it would need them.
> 
> IMHO, it would be better for the platform code to ensure that MMIO
> access was strongly ordered with respect to each other and to RAM
> access. Drivers are just too likely to get this wrong, especially
> when x86, the most tested platform, doesn't have such issues.

The plan is to make all platforms do this. writes should be
strongly ordered with memory. That serves to keep them inside
critical sections as well.

Then write?_relaxed, and memory barriers can be added if performance
is required.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/