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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 23:50:19 +0800 From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org, Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>, G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>, Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, wei@...hat.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>, Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: use readq to get 64-bit CNTVCT Hi Will, On 25 July 2016 at 17:02, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:17:59AM +0800, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote: >> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org> >> >> This patch simplify arch_counter_get_cntvct_mem function by >> using readq to get 64-bit CNTVCT value instead of readl_relaxed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org> >> --- >> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 10 +--------- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c >> index e6fd42d..483d2f9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c >> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c >> @@ -418,15 +418,7 @@ u32 arch_timer_get_rate(void) >> >> static u64 arch_counter_get_cntvct_mem(void) >> { >> - u32 vct_lo, vct_hi, tmp_hi; >> - >> - do { >> - vct_hi = readl_relaxed(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_HI); >> - vct_lo = readl_relaxed(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_LO); >> - tmp_hi = readl_relaxed(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_HI); >> - } while (vct_hi != tmp_hi); >> - >> - return ((u64) vct_hi << 32) | vct_lo; >> + return readq(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_LO); > Sorry, right after posting v9, I got your comment, > What's the benefit of doing this? If you use readq here, how can we benefit: 1. simplify the code 2. from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h, I guess readq is more efficient > guarantee that (a) the endpoint won't generate a SLVERR or similar and > (b) that we get ? I think so, according to arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h. readq Implement by "LDR" and "LDAR", So I think It is an atomic read. Please correct me, If I misunderstand something, thanks > > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" > > Will -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists