Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Eric Badger <ebadger@gigaio.com>
References: <20200221182503.28317-1-logang@deltatee.com>
 <20200227171704.GK31668@ziepe.ca>
 <e8781f85-3fc7-b9ce-c751-606803cbdc77@deltatee.com>
 <20200227174311.GL31668@ziepe.ca>
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Message-ID: <7e573498-81c1-7f00-c1ff-ed16e12a5b96@deltatee.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:54:40 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200227174311.GL31668@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Allow setting caching mode in arch_add_memory()
 for P2PDMA
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2020-02-27 10:43 a.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Hm, AFAIK WC memory is not compatible with the spinlocks/mutexs/etc in
> Linux, so while it is true the memory has no side effects, there would
> be surprising concurrency risks if anything in the kernel tried to
> write to it.
> 
> Not compatible means the locks don't contain stores to WC memory the
> way you would expect. AFAIK on many CPUs extra barriers are required
> to keep WC stores ordered, the same way ARM already has extra barriers
> to keep UC stores ordered with locking..
> 
> The spinlocks are defined to contain UC stores though.
> 
> If there is no actual need today for WC I would suggest using UC as
> the default.

Ok, that sounds sensible. I'll do that in the next revision.

Thanks,

Logan