[PATCHv3 1/3] ARM: mm: allow sub-architectures to override PCI I/O memory type

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 02:19:58PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2014 10:53:33 Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 04:55:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 15 May 2014 16:34:30 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > If this is used to synchronize with a DMA, there is no guarantee that the
> > > > > transaction from PCI will be visible in memory by then.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you elaborate on this scenario please? When would we use an I/O space
> > > > write to synchronise with a DMA transfer from a PCI endpoint? You're
> > > > definitely referring to I/O space as opposed to Configuration Space, right?
> > > 
> > > Correct. Assume a PCI device uses PIO and DMA. It sends a DMA to main memory
> > > and lets the CPU know about the data using a level (IntA as opposed to MSI)
> > > interrupt. The CPU performs an outl() operation to an I/O port to let the
> > > hardware know it has received the IRQ and the response of the outl() is
> > > guaranteed to flush the DMA transaction: by the time the outl() completes
> > > we know that the data in memory is valid because it is strongly ordered
> > > relative to the DMA.
> > 
> > Hmm, when you say `guaranteed to flush the DMA transaction', is that a PCI
> > requirement? If so, whether or not that DMA data is then visible to the CPU
> > is really specific to the host-controller implementation. It could easily be
> > buffered somewhere between the host controller and memory, for example.
> 
> It's something that drivers are supposed to rely on, and the PCI host
> already has to make the same guarantee about ordering of MSI, MMIO-read
> and DMA transactions, all of which we definitely rely on in the kernel.

Supposed to rely on for x86, sure. I don't think we can even give you this
guarantee for arm64, where nE is nothing more than a *hint* to the memory
subsystem.

For the MSI case, I thought we had to go and poke the SCU for the Marvell
SoC?

> > > outl() actually does a dsb() internally, but unfortunately that is
> > > before the store, not after, so I assume that a driver relying on the
> > > behavior above would still be racy.
> > 
> > Yup, we'd need an additional dsb. I think we're confusing what the PCI
> > specification says about ordering and what the inb/outb instructions provide
> > on x86. It may well be that we want to emulate the x86 behaviour on ARM, but
> > that's not going to come cheap and I don't think it's a decision we should
> > take lightly.
> 
> outb() is expected to be an extremely heavyweight operation, that's why nobody
> uses it. Why would you care about whether it's one or two microsecond latency
> on a MIDI port or an ISDN adapter?

Fair enough -- I just don't think we should dress up an erratum workaround as
a bug fix, especially when it's adding a new user of strongly-ordered memory
to the kernel which we can't honour for arm64.

> We can decide that we don't care about correctness here, but the performance
> argument doesn't seem overly important.

In this case, I think that's true.

Will