Re: [PATCH 04/12] MIPS: Octeon: Opt-out 4k_cache feature

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 19:55:23 +0000

> 
> 
>> 2023年3月6日 14:28,Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx> 写道:
>>
>> From: Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sat,  4 Mar 2023 22:15:16 +0000
>>
>>> Octeon has a different cache interface with traditional R4K one,
>>> just opt-out this flag for octeon to avoid run R4K cache initialization
>>> code accidentally.
>>>
>>> Also remove ISA level assumption for 4k cache.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/mips/include/asm/cpu-features.h | 2 +-
>>> arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c         | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu-features.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu-features.h
>>> index c0983130a44c..c613426b0bfc 100644
>>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu-features.h
>>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu-features.h
>>> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@
>>> #define cpu_has_3k_cache __isa_lt_and_opt(1, MIPS_CPU_3K_CACHE)
>>> #endif
>>> #ifndef cpu_has_4k_cache
>>> -#define cpu_has_4k_cache __isa_ge_or_opt(1, MIPS_CPU_4K_CACHE)
>>> +#define cpu_has_4k_cache __opt(MIPS_CPU_4K_CACHE)
>>
>> This breaks compile-time optimization for this feature => hurts
>> performance on non-Octeon machines. Could this be done some other way?
>> E.g. could this be defined depending on
>> CONFIG_SYS_HAS_CPU_OCTEON_WHATEVER? Via its own cpu-features.h or here,
>> that's the second question. So that the platforms which 100% can't have
>> this family of CPUs wouldn't get affected.
> 
> Thanks for the comment.
> 
> This feature is only checked once during boot and never checked at runtime so I think impact
> should be negligible.

Ah, didn't notice it's not used anywhere on hotpath. Just forgot that
MIPS installs cache sync callbacks once at boot and then use them.

> 
> Just don’t want to have another ifdef here :-)

I'm not sure one ifdef would hurt, we probably need a third opinion here
:D Maybe Thomas'. But I'm fine with the current implementation.

> 
> 
> Thanks
> - Jiaxun

Thanks,
Olek



[Index of Archives]     [LKML Archive]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Git]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]

  Powered by Linux