memory barriers in bus_dmamap_sync() ?
freebsd at damnhippie.dyndns.org
Wed Jan 11 17:00:36 UTC 2012
On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 11:49 -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:29:44 am Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:05:28AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:41:00 pm Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:52:49PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > > > > On 10 January 2012 13:37, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo at iet.unipi.it> wrote:
> > > > > > I was glancing through manpages and implementations of bus_dma(9)
> > > > > > and i am a bit unclear on what this API (in particular, bus_dmamap_sync() )
> > > > > > does in terms of memory barriers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see that the x86/amd64 and ia64 code only does the bounce buffers.
> > >
> > > That is because x86 in general does not need memory barriers. ...
> > maybe they are not called memory barriers but for instance
> > how do i make sure, even on the x86, that a write to the NIC ring
> > is properly flushed before the write to the 'start' register occurs ?
> > Take for instance the following segment from
> > head/sys/ixgbe/ixgbe.c::ixgbe_xmit() :
> > txd->read.cmd_type_len |=
> > htole32(IXGBE_TXD_CMD_EOP | IXGBE_TXD_CMD_RS);
> > txr->tx_avail -= nsegs;
> > txr->next_avail_desc = i;
> > txbuf->m_head = m_head;
> > /* Swap the dma map between the first and last descriptor */
> > txr->tx_buffers[first].map = txbuf->map;
> > txbuf->map = map;
> > bus_dmamap_sync(txr->txtag, map, BUS_DMASYNC_PREWRITE);
> > /* Set the index of the descriptor that will be marked done */
> > txbuf = &txr->tx_buffers[first];
> > txbuf->eop_index = last;
> > bus_dmamap_sync(txr->txdma.dma_tag, txr->txdma.dma_map,
> > BUS_DMASYNC_PREREAD | BUS_DMASYNC_PREWRITE);
> > /*
> > * Advance the Transmit Descriptor Tail (Tdt), this tells the
> > * hardware that this frame is available to transmit.
> > */
> > ++txr->total_packets;
> > IXGBE_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, IXGBE_TDT(txr->me), i);
> > the descriptor is allocated without any caching constraint,
> > the bus_dmamap_sync() are effectively NOPs on i386 and amd64,
> > and IXGBE_WRITE_REG has no implicit guard.
> x86 doesn't need a guard as its stores are ordered. The bus_dmamap_sync()
> would be sufficient for platforms where stores can be reordered in this
> case (as those platforms should place memory barriers in their implementation
> of bus_dmamap_sync()).
> > > We could use lfence/sfence on amd64, but on i386 not all processors support
> > ok then we can make it machine-specific versions... this is kernel
> > code so we do have a list of supported CPUs.
> It is not worth it to add the overhead for i386 to do that when all modern
> x86 CPUs are going to run amd64 anyway.
Harumph. I run i386 on all my x86 CPUs. For our embedded systems
products it's because they're small wimpy old CPUs, and for my desktop
system it's because I need to run builds for the embedded systems and
avoid all the cross-build problems of trying to create i386 ports on a
64 bit host.
> > > those. The broken drivers doing it by hand don't work on early i386 CPUs.
> > > Also, I personally don't like using membars like rmb() and wmb() by hand.
> > > If you are operating on normal memory I think atomic_load_acq() and
> > > atomic_store_rel() are better.
> > is it just a matter of names ?
> For regular memory when you are using memory barriers you often want to tie
> the barrier to a specific operation (e.g. it is the store in IXGBE_WRITE_REG()
> above that you want ordered after any other stores). Having the load/store
> and membar in the same call explicitly notes that relationship.
> > My complaint was mostly on how many
> > unused parameters you need to pass to bus_space_barrier().
> > They make life hard for both the programmer and the
> > compiler, which might become unable to optimize them out.
> Yes, it seems overly abstracted. In NetBSD, bus_dmapmap_sync() actually takes
> extra parameters to say which portion of the map should be sync'd. We removed
> those in FreeBSD to make the API simpler. bus_space_barrier() could probably
> use similar simplification (I believe we also adopted that API from NetBSD).
I've wished (in the ARM world) for the ability to sync a portion of a
map. I've even kicked around the idea of proposing an API extension to
do so, but I guess if FreeBSD went out of its way to remove that
functionality that idea probably won't fly. :)
More information about the freebsd-current