Hi Huacai,
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 09:15:46AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h
> >> index af34afb..a8c4a3a 100644
> >> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h
> >> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h
> >> @@ -386,7 +386,17 @@ unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
> >> #define KSTK_ESP(tsk) (task_pt_regs(tsk)->regs[29])
> >> #define KSTK_STATUS(tsk) (task_pt_regs(tsk)->cp0_status)
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON3
> >> +/*
> >> + * Loongson-3's SFB (Store-Fill-Buffer) may get starved when stuck in a read
> >> + * loop. Since spin loops of any kind should have a cpu_relax() in them, force
> >> + * a Store-Fill-Buffer flush from cpu_relax() such that any pending writes will
> >> + * become available as expected.
> >> + */
> >
> > I think "may starve writes" or "may queue writes indefinitely" would be
> > clearer than "may get starved".
>
> Need I change the comment and resend? Or you change the comment and get merged?
I'm happy to fix up the comment - but have a couple more questions.
Looking into the history, would it be fair to say that this is only a
problem after commit 1e820da3c9af ("MIPS: Loongson-3: Introduce
CONFIG_LOONGSON3_ENHANCEMENT") when CONFIG_LOONGSON3_ENHANCEMENT=y,
which adds code to enable the SFB?
If so would it make sense to use CONFIG_LOONGSON3_ENHANCEMENT to select
the use of smp_mb()?
How much does performance gain does enabling the SFB give you? Would it
be reasonable to just disable it, rather than using this workaround?
Thanks,
Paul
