From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 27 20:55:51 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EC6106566B for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:55:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41788FC16 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.32.16.3] (68.65.72.82.static-ip.telepacific.net [68.65.72.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.feral.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9RKdpgo069408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:39:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Message-ID: <4EA9C197.9080407@feral.com> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:39:51 -0700 From: Matthew Jacob Organization: Feral Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: newbus IO ordering semantics - moving forward X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mj@feral.com List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:55:51 -0000 On 10/27/2011 1:28 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > * Make the bus default to use ordered semantics, much like what Linux > does - ie, all IO read/writes (io or memory) are in-order and flushed > with a barrier; > * Add an option which allows the driver to request a region with > loose-running/lazy semantics, what we're supposed to have now, and > then leave barriers up to the driver; > * Print out something nice and loud if a driver decides to use the > lazy/loose semantics, which may result in unpredictable behaviour on > non-{i386,amd64}. > > I'd appreciate some feedback/comments before I go off and code all of this up. > > No. Please don't change the current semantics which are well understood if only fitfully adhered to. This would put us in the position of having some drivers possibly work slower because they didn't do the "lazy" request. I also am not sure I agree with your characterization of linux semantics.