On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:31:45PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:55:49PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> > On 25 July 2016 at 23:31, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:27:02PM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >> 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);
> > >
> > > Please drop this patch. It doesn't work.
> >
> > I am OK to drop this, but could you let me know why it doesn't work?
> >
> > I did get some problem on Foundation model about readq, but it works on Seattle.
> > I guess that is a problem of model, but not a code problem.
> > So I just got confused, why readq doesn't work, :-)
>
> The kernel really needs to support both of those platforms :/
>
> For the memory-mapped counter registers, the architecture says:
>
> `If the implementation supports 64-bit atomic accesses, then the
> CNTV_CVAL register must be accessible as an atomic 64-bit value.'
>
> which is borderline tautological. If we take the generous reading that
> this means AArch64 CPUs can use readq (and I'm not completely
> comfortable with that assertion, particularly as you say that it breaks
> the model), then you still need to use readq_relaxed here to avoid a
> DSB. Furthermore, what are you going to do for AArch32? readq doesn't
> exist over there, and if you use the generic implementation then it's
> not atomic. In which case, we end up with the current code, as well as a
> readq_relaxed guarded by a questionable #ifdef that is known to break a
> supported platform for an unknown performance improvement. Hardly a big
> win.
>
> Did you see any performance advantage from this? Given that you've added
> a DSB, this looks to be extremely premature.
+1, absolutely agreed on the 32-bit ARM bits.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
