On 02/02/12 16:36, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:36:49PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 02/02/12 13:38, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote

quoted

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:24:46AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

Should we move get_thread_info into assembler.h? It seems odd
to include entry-header.S but I saw that vfp was doing the same.

Probably yes, and probably also have preempt_disable and preempt_enable
assembler macros.  That's going to get rather icky if we have to
explicitly call the scheduler though (to solve (1)).

What about a pair of helpers written in C instead?

v7_flush_dcache_all() could be renamed, and a wrapper function called 
v7_flush_dcache_all() would call the preemption disable helper, call the 
former v7_flush_dcache_all code, then call the preemption enable helper.

Then __v7_setup() could still call the core cache flush code without 
issues.

I tried to put the preemption disable/enable right around the place
where it was needed. With this approach we would disable preemption
during the entire cache flush. I'm not sure if we want to make this
function worse for performance, do we? It certainly sounds easier than
writing all the preempt macros in assembly though.

Err, why do you think it's a big task?

preempt disable is a case of incrementing the thread preempt count, while
preempt enable is a case of decrementing it, testing for zero, if zero,
then checking whether TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set and calling a function.

If that's too much, then the simple method in assembly to quickly disable
preemption over a very few set of instructions is using mrs/msr and cpsid i.
That'll be far cheaper than fiddling about with preempt counters or
messing about with veneers in C code.

I'll try the macros. So far it isn't bad, just the __v7_setup to resolve.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.