Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

From: Jeremy Higdon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 00:52:42 -0700

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:47:18AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Thats not going to solve the problem on Altix. On Altix the issue is
> that there can be multiple paths through the NUMA fabric from cpuX to
> PCI bridge Y. 
> 
> Consider this uber-cool<tm> ascii art - NR is my abbrevation for NUMA
> router:
> 
>         -------         -------
>         |cpu X|         |cpu Y|
>         -------         -------
>          |   \____  ____/    |
>          |        \/         |
>          |    ____/\____     |
>          |   /          \    |
>          -----          ------
>          |NR 1|         |NR 2|
>          ------         ------
>               \         /
>                \       /
>                 -------
>                 | PCI |
>                 -------
> 
> The problem is that your two writel's, despite being both issued on
> cpu X, due to the spin lock, in your example, can end up with the
> first one going through NR 1 and the second one going through NR 2. If
> there's contention on NR 1, the write going via NR 2 may hit the PCI
> bridge prior to the one going via NR 1.

We don't actually have that problem on the Altix.  All writes issued
by CPU X will be ordered with respect to each other.  But writes by
CPU X and CPU Y will not be, unless an mmiowb() is done by the
original CPU before the second CPU writes.  I.e.

	CPU X	writel
	CPU X	writel
	CPU X	mmiowb

	CPU Y	writel
	...

Note that this implies some sort of locking.  Also note that if in
the above, CPU Y did the mmiowb, that would not work.

jeremy