[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081003085450.GA27551@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:54:50 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]Add Variable Page Size and IA64 Support in Intel
IOMMU: Generic Part
* Yu, Fenghua <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> >What's this all about? Why do we need #ifdef CONFIG_IA64 here?
> >Doesn't x86 provide its own readq/writeq implementation?
>
> This is a comment from Bjorn.
>
> In my patch, one readq/one writeq are working faster than two
> readl/two writel on IA64. X86 uses two readl/two writel so that the
> code works on both x86 and x86-64 although Intel IOMMU only has x86-64
> version currently. dmar_readq() and dmar_writeq() are in moderate
> performance critical path.
>
> Do you think my current implementation is ok to have #ifdef
> CONFIG_IA64 here? Or I can change X86 to use readq/writeq as well or
> IA64 uses two readl/two writel for clean code?
yes, clean code is very much preferred for a small detail like this.
Ingo
--
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