David Miller wrote:
From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 13:02:27 +1000
I suspect the best thing at this point is to move the sync in writeX()
before the store, as you suggest, and add an "eieio" before the load
in readX(). That does mean that we are then relying on driver writers
putting in the mmiowb() between a writeX() and a spin_unlock, but at
least that is documented.
I think not matching what PC systems do is, at least from one
perspective, a very bad engineering decision for 2 reasons.
1) You will be chasing down these kinds of problems forever,
you will fix tg3 today, but tomorrow it will be another driver
for which you will invest weeks of delicate debugging that
could have been spent on much more useful coding
2) Driver authors will not get these memory barriers right,
you can say they will because it will be "documented" but
that does not change reality which is that driver folks
will get simple interfaces right but these memory barriers
are relatively advanced concepts, which they thus will get
wrong half the time
Sure it's more expensive, but at least on sparc64 I'd much rather
spend my time working on more interesting things than "today's
missing memory barrier" :-)
I also don't want to see all of these memory barriers crapping up our
drivers. I do a MMIO, then I access a descriptor, or vice versa, then
those should be ordered because they are both technically accesses to
"physical device state". Having to say this explicitly seems really
the wrong thing to do, at least to me.
Agreed.
As (I think) BenH mentioned in another email, the normal way Linux
handles these interfaces is for the primary API (readX, writeX) to be
strongly ordered, strongly coherent, etc. And then there is a relaxed
version without barriers and syncs, for the smart guys who know what
they're doing. We used do this for fbdev drivers, I dunno what happened
to that interface.
We want to make it tough for driver writers to screw up, unless they are
really trying...
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
