From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_ring: use smp_store_mb Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:02:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20151217140212.GB6344__28721.431134227$1450360963$gmane$org@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1450347932-16325-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20151217112222.GC6375@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20151217151705-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151217151705-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:26:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Note that virtio_mb() is weirdly inconsistent with virtio_[rw]mb() in > > that they use dma_* ops for weak_barriers, while virtio_mb() uses > > smp_mb(). > > It's a hack really. I think I'll clean it up a bit to > make it more consistent. > > To simplify things, you may consider things before > the optimization brought in by > commit 9e1a27ea42691429e31f158cce6fc61bc79bb2e9 > Author: Alexander Duyck > Date: Mon Apr 13 21:03:49 2015 +0930 > > virtio_ring: Update weak barriers to use dma_wmb/rmb That commit doesn't make any sense. dma_*mb() explicitly does _NOT_ cover the smp_*mb() part. Again, look at the ARM definitions, the smp_*mb() primitives use the inner coherence stuff, while the dma_*mb() primitives use the outer coherent stuff. the *mb() primitives cover both.