On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:04:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 09:41:58PM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:40:56PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:55:26PM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 08:20:05PM GMT, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 08:15:34AM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > > > > > If I understand correctly, you don't need any memory barrier.
> > > > > > writel()/readl()'s are ordered to the same endpoint. That goes for
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > the reordering/barrier comments mentioned below too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > device-io.rst:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The read and write functions are defined to be ordered. That is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > compiler is not permitted to reorder the I/O sequence. When the
> > > > > > ordering
> > > > > > can be compiler optimised, you can use __readb() and friends to
> > > > > > indicate the relaxed ordering. Use this with care.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > memory-barriers.txt:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (*) readX(), writeX():
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The readX() and writeX() MMIO accessors take a pointer to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > peripheral being accessed as an __iomem * parameter. For
> > > > > > pointers
> > > > > > mapped with the default I/O attributes (e.g. those returned
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > ioremap()), the ordering guarantees are as follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. All readX() and writeX() accesses to the same peripheral
> > > > > > are ordered
> > > > > > with respect to each other. This ensures that MMIO
> > > > > > register accesses
> > > > > > by the same CPU thread to a particular device will
> > > > > > arrive in program
> > > > > > order.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In arm64, a writel followed by readl translates to roughly the
> > > > > following
> > > > > sequence: dmb_wmb(), __raw_writel(), __raw_readl(), dmb_rmb(). I am
> > > > > not
> > > > > sure what is stopping compiler from reordering __raw_writel() and
> > > > > __raw_readl()
> > > > > above? I am assuming iomem cookie is ignored during compilation.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that is due to some usage of volatile there in
> > > > __raw_writel() etc, but to be honest after reading about volatile and
> > > > some threads from gcc mailing lists, I don't have a confident answer :)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Added Will to this thread if he can throw some light on this.
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully Will can school us.
> > >
> > > The ordering in this case is ensured by the memory attributes used for
> > > ioremap(). When an MMIO region is mapped using Device-nGnRE attributes
> > > (as it the case for ioremap()), the "nR" part means "no reordering", so
> > > readX() and writeX() to that region are ordered wrt each other.
> >
> > But that avoids only HW reordering, doesn't it? What about *compiler
> > reordering* in the
> > case of a writel following by a readl which translates to:
> > 1: dmb_wmb()
> > 2: __raw_writel() -> roughly "asm volatile('str')
> > 3: __raw_readl() -> roughly "asm volatile('ldr')
> > 4: dmb_rmb()
> >
> > Is the 'volatile' keyword sufficient to avoid reordering between (2) and
> > (3)? Or
> > do we need a "memory" clobber to inhibit reordering?
> >
> > This is still not clear to me even after going through some compiler
> > documentions.
>
> I don't think the compiler should reorder volatile asm blocks wrt each
> other.
>
Thanks Will for confirmation.
-Akhil.
> Will
