On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 4:36 AM Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi John, > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 04:02:50AM +0000, John Stultz wrote: > > Hey All, > > ... > > > > > I did add to this series a reworked version of my uncached > > system heap implementation I was submitting a few weeks back. > > Since it duplicated a lot of the now reworked system heap code, > > I realized it would be much simpler to add the functionality to > > the system_heap implementaiton itself. > > That looks like a neat approach to me. Referencing your previous > thread, I like the separate heap (as you have done), rather than a > generic "cached"/"noncached" flag on all heaps. > Sounds good! I really appreciate the feedback on this. > > While not improving the core allocation performance, the > > uncached heap allocations do result in *much* improved > > performance on HiKey960 as it avoids a lot of flushing and > > invalidating buffers that the cpu doesn't touch often. > > > > Feedback on these would be great! > > Minor nit: s/detatch/detach/ on both heaps, but other than that > you can add my r-b to patches 1-5. Doh! Thanks for the spelling catch! Thanks again! > As you've said, it does feel like there's some room for > de-duplication, but that will be easier to work out once the > implementations settle. > > I've a couple of comments for the uncached heap, but I'm not confident > I understand the implications of having the non-cached alias enough to > say if it looks OK or not. Thanks so much! -john
