[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151109100503.GH17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:05:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>
Cc: linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
talz@...hip.com, gilf@...hip.com, cmetcalf@...hip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] Use dedicated cpu_relax()
On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Noam Camus wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> index 7266ede..50f9bae 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -58,12 +58,21 @@ struct task_struct;
> * get optimised away by gcc
> */
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +#ifndef CONFIG_EZNPS_MTM_EXT
> #define cpu_relax() __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
> #else
> +#define cpu_relax() \
> + __asm__ __volatile__ (".word %0" : : "i"(CTOP_INST_SCHD_RW) : "memory")
> +#endif
> +#else
> #define cpu_relax() do { } while (0)
I'm fairly sure this is incorrect. Even on UP we expect cpu_relax() to
be a compiler barrier.
> #endif
>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_EZNPS_MTM_EXT
> #define cpu_relax_lowlatency() cpu_relax()
> +#else
> +#define cpu_relax_lowlatency() barrier()
> +#endif
At which point you can unconditionally use that definition.
>
> #define copy_segments(tsk, mm) do { } while (0)
> #define release_segments(mm) do { } while (0)
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
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