On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 06:44:57PM -0800, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> A bit in reg_ch_conf_pending in wl271 and tmp_ch_bitmap is set atomically
> by set_bit(). set_bit() sets the bit in a single unsigned long location. If
> the variables are not aligned to unsigned long, set_bit() accesses two
> cache lines and thus causes slower performance. On x86, this scenario is
> called split lock and can cause overall performance degradation due to
> locked BTSL instruction in set_bit() locks bus.
>
> To avoid performance degradation, the two variables are aligned to
> unsigned long.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/cmd.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/wlcore.h | 6 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/cmd.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/cmd.c
> index 903968735a74..8d15a6307d44 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/cmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/cmd.c
> @@ -1707,7 +1707,8 @@ int wlcore_cmd_regdomain_config_locked(struct wl1271 *wl)
> {
> struct wl12xx_cmd_regdomain_dfs_config *cmd = NULL;
> int ret = 0, i, b, ch_bit_idx;
> - u32 tmp_ch_bitmap[2];
> + /* Align to unsigned long for better performance in set_bit() */
> + u32 tmp_ch_bitmap[2] __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long));
> struct wiphy *wiphy = wl->hw->wiphy;
> struct ieee80211_supported_band *band;
> bool timeout = false;
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/wlcore.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/wlcore.h
> index dd14850b0603..92d878f01fa5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/wlcore.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/wlcore.h
> @@ -321,8 +321,10 @@ struct wl1271 {
>
> /* Reg domain last configuration */
> u32 reg_ch_conf_last[2] __aligned(8);
> - /* Reg domain pending configuration */
> - u32 reg_ch_conf_pending[2];
> + /* Reg domain pending configuration. Aligned to unsigned long for
> + * better performane in set_bit().
> + */
> + u32 reg_ch_conf_pending[2] __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long));
>
> /* Pointer that holds DMA-friendly block for the mailbox */
> void *mbox;
This has nothing to do with better performance. This is generic code,
not x86 arch code. Many RISC platforms will already refuse unaligned
atomic ops.
Also, how is this set_bit() usage endian safe?
And no wireless person on Cc anywhere.
