Re: [PATCH v2] arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h: redefine rmb and wmb to lwsync

[Kautuk Consul]

On 2023-02-22 20:16:10, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 09:31:48AM +0530, Kautuk Consul wrote:
> > On 2023-02-22 09:47:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 02:33:44PM +0530, Kautuk Consul wrote:
> > > > A link from ibm.com states:
> > > > "Ensures that all instructions preceding the call to __lwsync
> > > >  complete before any subsequent store instructions can be executed
> > > >  on the processor that executed the function. Also, it ensures that
> > > >  all load instructions preceding the call to __lwsync complete before
> > > >  any subsequent load instructions can be executed on the processor
> > > >  that executed the function. This allows you to synchronize between
> > > >  multiple processors with minimal performance impact, as __lwsync
> > > >  does not wait for confirmation from each processor."
> > > > 
> > > > Thats why smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() are defined to lwsync.
> > > > But this same understanding applies to parallel pipeline
> > > > execution on each PowerPC processor.
> > > > So, use the lwsync instruction for rmb() and wmb() on the PPC
> > > > architectures that support it.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kautuk Consul <kconsul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h | 7 +++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> > > > index b95b666f0374..e088dacc0ee8 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> > > > @@ -36,8 +36,15 @@
> > > >   * heavy-weight sync, so smp_wmb() can be a lighter-weight eieio.
> > > >   */
> > > >  #define __mb()   __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory")
> > > > +
> > > > +/* The sub-arch has lwsync. */
> > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_E500MC)
> > > > +#define __rmb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("lwsync" : : : "memory")
> > > > +#define __wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("lwsync" : : : "memory")
> > > 
> > > Hmmm...
> > > 
> > > Does the lwsync instruction now order both cached and uncached accesses?
> > > Or have there been changes so that smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() get this
> > > definition, while rmb() and wmb() still get the sync instruction?
> > > (Not seeing this, but I could easily be missing something.)
> 
> > Upfront I don't see any documentation that states that lwsync
> > distinguishes between cached and uncached accesses.
> > That's why I requested the mailing list for test results with
> > kernel load testing.
> 
> I suggest giving the reference manual a very careful read.  I wish I
> could be more helpful, but I found that a very long time ago, and no
> longer recall exactly where it was stated.
Will do that as soon as I get an opprotunity.
> 
> But maybe Michael Ellerman has a pointer?
Sure. Maybe the cached and uncached accesses in these instructions should be
spelt out more clearly for newer people like me. :-)
Thanks for your time, Paul.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > > > +#else
> > > >  #define __rmb()  __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory")
> > > >  #define __wmb()  __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory")
> > > > +#endif
> > > >  
> > > >  /* The sub-arch has lwsync */
> > > >  #if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_E500MC)
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.31.1
> > > >