Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1047-g9e4af4ada4-fm-20221005.001-g9e4af4ad
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <b88e4bd2-5c2e-430a-99f9-18cd43463fd6@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a91e8216-7767-9126-e1d2-c67846cf32fc@gmail.com>
References: <20221010101331.29942-1-parav@nvidia.com>
 <d5faaf6f-7de5-49b0-92d6-9989ffbdbf2e@app.fastmail.com>
 <59d99be6-f79e-45bd-203c-17972255cc39@gmail.com>
 <12f51033-1461-43f9-8d8d-cd726fbb4758@app.fastmail.com>
 <a91e8216-7767-9126-e1d2-c67846cf32fc@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:49:34 +0200
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To:     "Akira Yokosawa" <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        "Parav Pandit" <parav@nvidia.com>
Cc:     "Bagas Sanjaya" <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        "Alan Stern" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>, dhowells@redhat.com,
        j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, dlustig@nvidia.com,
        "Joel Fernandes" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] locking/memory-barriers.txt: Improve documentation for writel()
 example
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022, at 9:40 AM, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 08:44:09 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> Anything weaker than a full "wmb()" probably makes the driver calling
>> the writel() non-portable, so that is both vague and incorrect.
>
> Do you mean there is a writel() implementation somewhere in the kernel
> which doesn't guarantee an implicit wmb() before MMIO write?

There are lots of those, but that's not what I meant. E.g. on x86,
writel() does not imply a full wmb() but still guarantees serialization
between DMA and the register access.

> Or do you mean my version is confusing because it can imply a weaker
> write barrier is sufficient before writel_relaxed()?

That's what I meant, yes. On a lot of architectures, it is sufficient
to have something weaker than wmb() before writel_relaxed(), especially
on anything that defines writel_relaxed() to be the same as writel(),
any barrier would technically work. On arm32, using __iowmb() would be
sufficient, and this can be less than a full wmb() but again it's
obviously not portable. These details should not be needed in the
documentation.

      Arnd