On 3/27/2018 12:54 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 08:42 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 3/23/2018 10:34 PM, ok...@codeaurora.org wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-23 19:58, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 14:53 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM,
On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 08:42 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 3/23/2018 10:34 PM, ok...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> > On 2018-03-23 19:58, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 14:53 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Sinan Kaya > > > org>
> > > > wrote:
> >
On 3/27/2018 10:38 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> We are being told that if you use writel(), then you don't need a wmb() on
>> all architectures.
> I'm not sure who told you that but that is incorrect, at least for
> x86. If you attempt to use writel() without the wmb() we will have to
> NAK the pa
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 3/27/2018 10:04 AM, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Double sorry now.
>>>
>>> I don't know if you have been following "RFC on writel and writel_relaxed"
>>> thread
>>> or not but there are some new developments about wmb() requirement.
>
> On 3/27/2018 10:04 AM, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Double sorry now.
> >>
> >> I don't know if you have been following "RFC on writel and writel_relaxed"
> >> thread
> >> or not but there are some new developments about wmb() requirement.
> >
> > Just out of interest: Where can
On 3/27/2018 10:04 AM, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Double sorry now.
>>
>> I don't know if you have been following "RFC on writel and writel_relaxed"
>> thread
>> or not but there are some new developments about wmb() requirement.
>
> Just out of interest: Where can this thread be found?
Hi,
> Double sorry now.
>
> I don't know if you have been following "RFC on writel and writel_relaxed"
> thread
> or not but there are some new developments about wmb() requirement.
Just out of interest: Where can this thread be found?
>
> Basically, wmb() should never be used before writel(
Jeff,
On 3/23/2018 10:34 PM, ok...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-03-23 19:58, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 14:53 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Sinan Kaya
>>> wrote:
>>> > Code includes wmb() followed by writel() in multiple places. writel()
On 2018-03-23 19:58, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 14:53 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Sinan Kaya
wrote:
> Code includes wmb() followed by writel() in multiple places. writel()
> already has a barrier on some architectures like arm64.
>
> This ends
On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 14:53 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Sinan Kaya
> wrote:
> > Code includes wmb() followed by writel() in multiple places. writel()
> > already has a barrier on some architectures like arm64.
> >
> > This ends up CPU observing two barriers b
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Code includes wmb() followed by writel() in multiple places. 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 alrea
Code includes wmb() followed by writel() in multiple places. 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_rela
12 matches
Mail list logo
