lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:34:34 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...il.com>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"IDE/ATA development list" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/5] AHCI: Do not read HOST_IRQ_STAT register in
 multi-MSI mode

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com> wrote:
> As described in AHCI v1.0 specification chapter 10.6.2.2
> "Multiple MSI Based Messages" generation of interrupts
> is not controlled through the HOST_IRQ_STAT register.
>
> Considering MMIO access is expensive remove unnecessary
> reading and writing of HOST_IRQ_STAT register.
>
> Further, serializing access to the host data is no longer
> needed and the interrupt service routine can avoid competing
> on the host lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
> Suggested-by: "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>
> Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/ata/ahci.h    |  1 +
>  drivers/ata/libahci.c | 54 ++++++++-------------------------------------------
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.h b/drivers/ata/ahci.h
> index c12f590..b8e117a 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/ahci.h
> +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.h
> @@ -305,6 +305,7 @@ struct ahci_port_priv {
>         unsigned int            ncq_saw_dmas:1;
>         unsigned int            ncq_saw_sdb:1;
>         u32                     intr_status;    /* interrupts to handle */
> +       spinlock_t              intr_lock;      /* protects intr_status */

Why introduce a new lock?  Can't we switch to per-ata port locking
rather than ata_host locking?
--
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