[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180323.124326.2170503491903886041.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:43:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: okaya@...eaurora.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, timur@...eaurora.org,
sulrich@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, ariel.elior@...ium.com,
everest-linux-l2@...ium.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] bnx2x: Eliminate duplicate barriers on
weakly-ordered archs
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:31:12 -0400
> Sorry, you got me confused now.
>
> If you look at the code closer, you'll see this.
>
> wmb();
>
> txdata->tx_db.data.prod += nbd;
> barrier();
>
> DOORBELL(bp, txdata->cid, txdata->tx_db.raw);
>
> and you also asked me to rename DOORBELL to DOORBELL_RELAXED() to make
> it obvious that we have a relaxed operator inside the macro.
This still doesn't match the stated pattern.
wmb();
/* no other memory or I/O or IOMEM operation */
writel();
There is a write to a producer index there and then no non-compiler
barrier or any kind before the writel().
So, in fact, it might really need that implicit writel() barrier here!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists