lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v3 18/18] infiniband: cxgb4: Eliminate duplicate barriers on weakly-ordered archs
Date
> 
> On 3/16/2018 5:05 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
> >> Code includes wmb() followed by writel(). writel() already has a barrier
> > on
> >> some architectures like arm64.
> >>
> >> This ends up CPU observing two barriers back to back before executing
> the
> >> register write.
> >>
> >> Since code already has an explicit barrier call, changing writel() to
> >> writel_relaxed().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> >
> > NAK - This isn't correct for PowerPC. For PowerPC, writeX_relaxed() is just
> > writeX().
> >
> > I was just looking at this with Chelsio developers, and they said the
> > writeX() should be replaced with __raw_writeX(), not writeX_relaxed(), to
> > get rid of the extra barrier for all architectures.
>
> OK. I can do that but isn't the problem at PowerPC adaptation?
>
> /*
> * We don't do relaxed operations yet, at least not with this semantic
> */
> #define readb_relaxed(addr) readb(addr)
> #define readw_relaxed(addr) readw(addr)
> #define readl_relaxed(addr) readl(addr)
> #define readq_relaxed(addr) readq(addr)
> #define writeb_relaxed(v, addr) writeb(v, addr)
> #define writew_relaxed(v, addr) writew(v, addr)
> #define writel_relaxed(v, addr) writel(v, addr)
> #define writeq_relaxed(v, addr) writeq(v, addr)
>
> Why don't we fix the PowerPC's relaxed operators? Is that a bigger task?

I don't know the answer, but perhaps the proper fix is to correctly implement these for PPC?


>
> >From API perspective both __raw_writeX() and writeX_relaxed() are
> correct.
> It is just PowerPC doesn't seem the follow the definition yet.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-17 00:06    [W:0.079 / U:31.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site