Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754850AbbFBMMm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:12:42 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:34331 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753246AbbFBMMe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:12:34 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:12:29 +0200
From: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
To: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>
Cc: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@imgtec.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
        markos.chandras@imgtec.com, macro@linux-mips.org,
        Steven.Hill@imgtec.com, alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com,
        davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] MIPS: R6: Use lightweight SYNC instruction in smp_*
 memory barriers
Message-ID: <20150602121227.GA1474@macpro.local>
References: <20150602000818.6668.76632.stgit@ubuntu-yegoshin>
 <20150602000934.6668.43645.stgit@ubuntu-yegoshin>
 <20150602100835.GG24014@NP-P-BURTON>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150602100835.GG24014@NP-P-BURTON>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2027
Lines: 48

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:08:35AM +0100, Paul Burton wrote:
> Hi Leonid,
> 

<snip>

> > +
> > +	  If that instructions are not implemented in processor then it is
> > +	  converted to generic "SYNC 0".
> 
> I think this would read better as something like:
> 
>   If a processor does not implement the lightweight sync operations then
>   the architecture requires that they interpret the corresponding sync
>   instructions as the typical heavyweight "sync 0". Therefore this
>   should be safe to enable on all CPUs implementing release 2 or
>   later of the MIPS architecture.
> 

Is it really the case for release 2?

I'm asking because recently I needed to do something similar and I couldn't
find this garantee in the revision 2.00 of the manual.
May it's just poorly formulated but here is what I find in it:
- "The stype values 1-31 are reserved for future extensions to the architecture."
  (ok)
- "A value of zero will always be defined such that it performs all defined
   synchronization operations." (ok)
- "Non-zero values may be defined to remove some synchronization operations."
  (ok, certainly if we understand the word "weaker" instead of "remove")
- "As such, software should never use a non-zero value of the stype field, as
  this may inadvertently cause future failures if non-zero values remove
  synchronization operations." (Mmmm, ok but ...)
Nowhere is there something close to what is found in the revision 5.0 or later:
  "If an implementation does not use one of these non-zero values to define a
   different synchronization behavior, then that non-zero value of stype must
   act the same as stype zero completion barrier."

The wording may have changed since revision 2.8 but I don't have access to the
corresponding manual.


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