On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 13:50 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > > > What do you think about this version? Did I miss any SMP > > > barriers? > > > > I would say we should probably just drop the whole set and start > > over. > > If we don't need the wmb() we are going to need to go through and > > clean up all of these paths and consider the barriers when updating > > the layout of the code. > > > > For example I have been thinking about it and in the case of x86 we > > are probably better off not bothering with the wmb() and > > writel_relaxed() and instead switch over to the smp_wmb() and > > writel() > > since in the case of a strongly ordered system like x86 or sparc > > this > > ends up translating out to a couple of compile barriers. > > > > I will also need time to reevaluate the Rx paths since dropping the > > wmb() may have other effects which I need to verify. > > Sounds good, I'll let you work on it. > > @Jeff Kirsher: can you drop this version from your development branch > until > Alex posts the next version? Already on it, I will work with Alex on any possible future versions of these patches.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
