[PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_ORDER

[Bjorn Helgaas]

[+cc Casey]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:18:33AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong at huawei.com> wrote:
> > Hi Amir:
> >
> > It is really glad to hear that the mlx5 will support RO mode this year, if so, do you agree that enable it dynamic by ethtool -s xxx,
> > we have try it several month ago but there was only one drivers would use it at that time so the maintainer against it, it mlx5 would support RO,
> > we could try to restart this solution, what do you think about it. :)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ding
> 
> Hi Ding,
> 
> Enabing relaxed ordering really doesn't have any place in ethtool. It
> is a PCIe attribute that you are essentially wanting to enable.
> 
> It might be worth while to take a look at updating the PCIe code path
> to handle this. Really what we should probably do is guarantee that
> the architectures that need relaxed ordering are setting it in the
> PCIe Device Control register and that the ones that don't are clearing
> the bit. It's possible that this is already occurring, but I don't
> know the state of handling those bits is in the kernel. Once we can
> guarantee that we could use that to have the drivers determine their
> behavior in regards to relaxed ordering. For example in the case of
> igb/ixgbe we could probably change the behavior so that it will bey
> default try to use relaxed ordering but if it is not enabled in PCIe
> Device Control register the hardware should not request to use it. It
> would simplify things in the drivers and allow for each architecture
> to control things as needed in their PCIe code.

I thought Relaxed Ordering was an optimization.  Are there cases where
it is actually required for correct behavior?

The PCI core doesn't currently do anything with Relaxed Ordering.
Some drivers enable/disable it directly.  I think it would probably be
better if the core provided an interface for this.  One reason is
because I think Casey has identified some systems where Relaxed
Ordering doesn't work correctly, and I'd rather deal with them once in
the core than in every driver.

Are you hinting that the PCI core or arch code could actually *enable*
Relaxed Ordering without the driver doing anything?  Is it safe to do
that?  Is there such a thing as a device that is capable of using RO,
but where the driver must be aware of it being enabled, so it programs
the device appropriately?

Bjorn