On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:33:51PM +0530, Kashyap, Desai wrote:
> We need the 64 bit completed in one access pci memory write, else spin lock is required.
> Since it's going to be difficult to know which writeq was implemented in the kernel,
> the driver is going to have to always acquire a spin lock each time we do 64bit write.
> */
> -#ifndef writeq
> static inline void _base_writeq(__u64 b, volatile void __iomem *addr,
> spinlock_t *writeq_lock)
> {
> @@ -1570,13 +1569,6 @@ static inline void _base_writeq(__u64 b, volatile void __iomem *addr,
> writel((u32)(data_out >> 32), (addr + 4));
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(writeq_lock, flags);
> }
> -#else
> -static inline void _base_writeq(__u64 b, volatile void __iomem *addr,
> - spinlock_t *writeq_lock)
> -{
> - writeq(cpu_to_le64(b), addr);
> -}
> -#endif
>
Instead of taking out this optimisation (which is going to hurt massively
on 8-socket systems), why not simply change:
-#ifndef writeq
+#if BITS_PER_LONG < 64
(OK, there's an assumption that all 64-bit systems have an atomic 64-bit
MMIO store operation ... but I think that's a valid assumption).
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
