[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:04:04 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
paulus@...ba.org, torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
> If we go this route though, can I request that we don't introduce any
> performance regressions in drivers currently using mmiowb()? I.e.
> they'll be converted over to the new accessor routines when they become
> available along with the new barrier macros?
There are few enough of them, I've grep'ed, so that should be doable.
The segher mentioned in favor of his approach (option B -> ioremap
flags) that doing a test in writeX/readX is very cheap compared to the
cost of IOs in general and would make driver conversion easier: you
don't have to change a single occurence of writel/readl : just add the
necessary barriers and change the ioremap call. Thus I tend to agree
that his approach makes it easier from a driver writer point of view.
Now, I don't have a strong preference myself, which is why I asked for a
vote here. So far, I could your vote for A :)
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists