From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/18] infiniband: cxgb4: Eliminate duplicate barriers on weakly-ordered archs Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:13:47 -0600 Message-ID: <20180316221347.GA958@ziepe.ca> References: <1521216991-28706-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1521216991-28706-19-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <003601d3bd6a$783d6970$68b83c50$@opengridcomputing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: 'Sinan Kaya' , netdev@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org, sulrich@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 'Steve Wise' , 'Doug Ledford' , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Michael Werner' , 'Casey Leedom' To: Steve Wise Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <003601d3bd6a$783d6970$68b83c50$@opengridcomputing.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:05:10PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > > Code includes wmb() followed by writel(). writel() already has a barrier > on > > some architectures like arm64. > > > > This ends up CPU observing two barriers back to back before executing the > > register write. > > > > Since code already has an explicit barrier call, changing writel() to > > writel_relaxed(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya > > NAK - This isn't correct for PowerPC. For PowerPC, writeX_relaxed() is just > writeX(). ?? Why is changing writex() to writeX() a NAK then? > I was just looking at this with Chelsio developers, and they said the > writeX() should be replaced with __raw_writeX(), not writeX_relaxed(), to > get rid of the extra barrier for all architectures. That doesn't seem semanticaly sane. __raw_writeX() should not appear in driver code, IMHO. Only the arch code can know what the exact semantics of that accessor are.. If ppc can't use writel_relaxed to optimize then we probably need yet another io accessor semantic defined :( Jason