[PATCH] powerpc/64: Fix an out of date comment about MMIO ordering

[PATCH] powerpc/64: Fix an out of date comment about MMIO ordering

[Palmer Dabbelt]

From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>

This primitive has been renamed, but because it was spelled incorrectly in the
first place it must have escaped the fixup patch.  As far as I can tell this
logic is still correct: smp_mb__after_spinlock() uses the default smp_mb()
implementation, which is "sync" rather than "hwsync" but those are the same
(though I'm not that familiar with PowerPC).

Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
index b3c9f15089b6..7b38b4daca93 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ _GLOBAL(_switch)
 	 * kernel/sched/core.c).
 	 *
 	 * Uncacheable stores in the case of involuntary preemption must
-	 * be taken care of. The smp_mb__before_spin_lock() in __schedule()
+	 * be taken care of. The smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule()
 	 * is implemented as hwsync on powerpc, which orders MMIO too. So
 	 * long as there is an hwsync in the context switch path, it will
 	 * be executed on the source CPU after the task has performed
-- 
2.28.0.rc0.105.gf9edc3c819-goog

Re: [PATCH] powerpc/64: Fix an out of date comment about MMIO ordering

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 12:38 -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
> 
> This primitive has been renamed, but because it was spelled incorrectly in the
> first place it must have escaped the fixup patch.  As far as I can tell this
> logic is still correct: smp_mb__after_spinlock() uses the default smp_mb()
> implementation, which is "sync" rather than "hwsync" but those are the same
> (though I'm not that familiar with PowerPC).

Typo ? That must be me ... :)

Looks fine. Yes, sync and hwsync are the same (by opposition to lwsync
which is lighter weight and doesn't order cache inhibited).

Cheers,
Ben.

> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> index b3c9f15089b6..7b38b4daca93 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> @@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ _GLOBAL(_switch)
>  	 * kernel/sched/core.c).
>  	 *
>  	 * Uncacheable stores in the case of involuntary preemption must
> -	 * be taken care of. The smp_mb__before_spin_lock() in __schedule()
> +	 * be taken care of. The smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule()
>  	 * is implemented as hwsync on powerpc, which orders MMIO too. So
>  	 * long as there is an hwsync in the context switch path, it will
>  	 * be executed on the source CPU after the task has performed

Re: [PATCH] powerpc/64: Fix an out of date comment about MMIO ordering

[Michael Ellerman]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:38:20 -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> This primitive has been renamed, but because it was spelled incorrectly in the
> first place it must have escaped the fixup patch.  As far as I can tell this
> logic is still correct: smp_mb__after_spinlock() uses the default smp_mb()
> implementation, which is "sync" rather than "hwsync" but those are the same
> (though I'm not that familiar with PowerPC).

Applied to powerpc/next.

[1/1] powerpc/64: Fix an out of date comment about MMIO ordering
      https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/147c13413c04bc6a2bd76f2503402905e5e98cff

cheers